ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Jobcentre Plus

Eric Illsley: What steps she is taking to improve telephone communications between benefit claimants and Jobcentre Plus.

Yvette Cooper: In keeping with the 100th anniversary of the labour exchange, which is today, we are continuing to modernise communications with Jobcentre Plus to make it easier for millions of people to get in touch about their benefit or seeking work. We have been concerned for some time that people calling on mobile phones were being charged a lot for calls to claim benefits which would be free from landlines, so we have recently negotiated a deal with the major mobile phone companies that their customers should also not be charged for calling 0800 numbers, and we are looking at what further steps we can take.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, and particularly for her reference to the anniversary of labour exchanges. My constituents and my local citizens advice bureau have complained to me about the use of 0845 numbers in jobcentres. Claimants seem to wait a very long time before their query is dealt with. Although jobcentres offer to call claimants back, by that time they have spent a considerable amount of money dealing with that telephone inquiry. Can the Government move away from 0845 numbers altogether?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have asked for all the phone lines to be reviewed now that we have made important progress. I think he would agree that the first step was to get the deal with mobile phone companies so that people were not being charged for the important calls setting up their benefit claims, which can be the longest calls that people make. The 0845 numbers have traditionally been used for shorter calls, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, Jobcentre Plus will call back any customer who is concerned about the cost of calls, but I have asked the Department to look at what further we can do to support all our customers. He will appreciate that cost always has to be taken into account, but we want to make it as easy as possible for people to get the help that they need, particularly to get back into employment.

Andrew Selous: I congratulate the staff of jobcentres on their centenary year and thank them for their very hard work. At a time when the Government have been closing a jobcentre a week and some 35,000 people are being fed by food banks, it is vital that people can get through to the social fund easily. So why is it that the most vulnerable people often have less than 2 per cent. of their calls answered-a far worse rate than at the Child Support Agency, for example-and what are the Government going to do about it?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in a series of the points that he makes, including on the closure of jobcentres. As he knows, we are investing more money in supporting jobcentres-money that his party continues to oppose. Despite the recession, it refuses to back the additional investment and the additional staff that we have put into jobcentres to help people get back into work. He makes an important point about the social fund. We have been increasing the support to make sure that it is much easier for people to get through when they need crisis loans. It is important that people should get access to the help that they need. That is why the position on telephone calls has improved significantly.

Meg Munn: The use of the telephone is very convenient for many people, but for some types of claimants it can be difficult. What training is given to staff working on the telephones to help people who have disabilities, such as people on the autistic spectrum, who may find it more difficult to put across their needs and their difficulties?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We provide additional training to make sure that staff are aware of all the kinds of help that people might need if they have disabilities. Also, where appropriate, we make home visits and personal visits, and offer appointments as well as accepting claims by phone. We want people to have the widest range of access to Jobcentre Plus, in a way that meets their personal needs and circumstances.

Employment and Support Allowance

Anne McIntosh: How many employment and support allowance claimants there were in (a) Vale of York constituency and (b) England in each of the last three years.

Jonathan R Shaw: The employment and support allowance was introduced in October 2008. Information about the number of claimants in each of the past three years is not available. Provisional figures for May 2009 show that the number of claimants of employment and support allowance was 270 in the hon. Lady's constituency and 237,270 in England.

Anne McIntosh: It would have been helpful to have had comparative figures, such as we see in the newspapers today, for the old incapacity benefit compared with the new allowance. I understand that radical reductions have been made. Why did it take the Government so long to analyse the figures and press the changes through? What right of appeal does a claimant who feels aggrieved by the change have?

Jonathan R Shaw: On the final point, there is an appeals process. Most of the decisions made by the Department are upheld-more than 60 per cent. The employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment are part of the reform programme that we have instigated over a number of years. As the hon. Lady will remember, between the 1980s and the 1990s the numbers on incapacity benefit doubled. People were out of work and put on sickness benefit. We have arrested that rise since 2003 and we have seen the numbers fall.

Mark Harper: The Minister will know that the number of people on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance is higher today than it was when the Government came to office. The work capability assessment is successfully identifying people who should be able to get into work, but since employment and support allowance was introduced in October 2008 how many claimants have been helped to get a job?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is selective with his points. He does not acknowledge that the number of people on incapacity benefit doubled between the 1980s and 1990s. It rose until 2003, and it has been coming down since then.  [ Interruption. ] It doubled, and we are bringing it down. The pathways to work programme has helped into work 175,000 people who were on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, and there has been £1 billion of investment, which is a radical change from what we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.

Jobseeker's Allowance

David Jones: What proportion of the population in (a) the UK, (b) Wales and (c) Clwyd, West constituency was claiming jobseeker's allowance on the most recent date for which figures are available.

Jim Knight: In December last year, 4.1 per cent. of the working-age population of Clwyd, West were claiming jobseeker's allowance. The figures for the UK and Wales were 4.1 per cent. and 4.3 per cent. respectively. Current figures for the UK are 450,000 lower than was predicted at the Budget.

David Jones: Two of the most noticeable recent cases of large-scale redundancies in Wales-Indesit in Bodelwyddan and Bosch in the Vale of Glamorgan-were a consequence of the employer deciding that it was no longer cost-effective to manufacture in this country. That is particularly sad, given Wales's track record in attracting inward investment. What are the Government doing to help ensure that the United Kingdom generally and Wales in particular are cost-effective and attractive places in which to set up businesses and employ people?

Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, through the "New Industry, New Jobs" and growth strategies that have been published in the past six months, has set out where the jobs of the future are coming from and how they will be realised. The hon. Gentleman will have noted, as I did, that the number of manufacturing jobs increased in the most recent set of statistics, and that the manufacturing economy grew in the figures that were announced last week for the final quarter of last year. He will have noted also that last year employment rose in his constituency, which I am sure he welcomes. I hope that he, unlike his Front-Bench team, welcomes also the future jobs fund jobs in his area and, for example, the Rhyl City Strategy Community Interest Company, which is creating 322 jobs throughout Conwy and Denbighshire. Not only are the number of manufacturing jobs rising; we are ensuring that we create jobs for young people, in particular, in his area.

Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend mentioned the number of people on jobseeker's allowance in the United Kingdom, and, although those figures are very disappointing, they are much lower than the figures during previous recessions in this country. Will he indicate the comparative figures for other leading industrial economies, such as Spain, the USA or Germany?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, because some people-most notably the Opposition-try to pretend that we have historically high figures compared with our international competitors. However, in October 2009 the youth unemployment rate-for 15 to 24-year-olds-for example, was 19.8 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 21.1 per cent. in the European Union, 26.6 per cent. in Italy, 42.8 per cent. in Spain and 25.2 per cent. in France. A range of different international competitors have not been able to respond as effectively as we have, and that is a tribute to the many workers throughout the country who have helped businesses to survive by being willing to work shorter hours and take pay cuts. Part of the story of this recession has been those heroes throughout the country who have helped Britain through the downturn.

Hywel Williams: Given the wide variation in unemployment and poverty figures from area to area, does the Minister agree that regionalising the rates of benefit payments would be impractical and unfair?

Jim Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably commenting on the Opposition's policies. For our part, we have been proud not only to sustain decent levels of support for people who are unemployed, but, importantly, to make work pay through the tax credit system and the minimum wage. We are also pleased to see that, despite the recession, the inactivity rate is moving in the right direction, which is unprecedented. In previous recessions, as we heard, inactivity soared; in this recession it has remained broadly constant. In 1985 in Wales, the inactivity rate was 28.2 per cent.; in 1993, it was 26.1 per cent., and it is now 24.2 per cent.

Pensioners (Financial Assistance)

Nicholas Winterton: Whether she plans to provide additional financial assistance for pensioners this winter.

Angela Eagle: This winter older people have again received an additional payment on top of the winter fuel payment, and the poorest continue to receive increased cold weather payments in periods of exceptionally cold weather.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that Help the Aged, a charity which I support and whose work I greatly admire, estimates that nearly 3 million pensioners are living in fuel poverty and that many of them are forced to choose between heating or eating? As we are likely to get further cold weather, what further action are the Government prepared to take to help this very vulnerable group?

Angela Eagle: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair Member of the House, and I hope that he acknowledges that the tripling of cold weather payments this year has helped enormously. We have made more than 10 million payments, costing £271 million, to the most vulnerable, as well as to pensioners. In his own constituency, there have been four triggers of cold weather payments, which means that people in the group that he is obviously concerned about-I share his concern-have already had an extra £100 in four cold weather payments to help them through this exceptionally cold winter. We will consider doing more. However, I merely say that when we came into government, £60 million was spent on helping pensioners with their fuel bills, whereas we are now spending £2.7 billion on winter fuel payments alone. We have a record to be proud of.

Anne Begg: While welcoming the tripling of the cold weather payments, which has made a huge difference-I am sure that this weekend there will be another trigger in my constituency because we have had another 3 or 4 inches of snow-the problem for pensioners is that they do not know that they are going to get the payment because they do not know that it has been triggered. As a result of the scare stories that they are seeing in the media, they are not heating their houses sufficiently because they do not know that they are going to get the money. What would my hon. Friend say to the people out there who are very concerned about their fuel bills to give them the assurance that they should be turning the heating up, that they will get the money, and that that money will help them to pay their bills?

Angela Eagle: I do not want any older person to worry about turning up the heating in periods of cold weather. Cold weather payments are automatically paid to those who are on pension credit, who also have the winter fuel payments and, in many cases, benefit from social tariffs. It is important that my hon. Friend's constituents know, and have confidence, that they can and should turn up the heating if the weather gets cold.

Steve Webb: The £25 cold weather payment is indeed welcome. However, does the Minister accept that the way in which it is treated can seem very arbitrary because it is based on weather stations, some of which can be many miles away from where people live, creating strange boundary effects such as dividing one side of a road from the other? Does she plan to review the way that these payments are triggered so that they more accurately reflect the actual temperatures where people live?

Angela Eagle: The cold weather payment triggers are reviewed every year. While I accept that no system is perfect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that all but three weather stations have been triggered this year, and that there have been millions of cold weather payments as a result. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has tripled the level of the cold weather payment.

Steve Webb: Can I raise with the Minister the issue of vulnerable people, including many pensioners, who are being exploited by having their benefits paid on to prepayment credit cards, which make a charge when money goes on and a charge when money goes off? Is she concerned that vulnerable people, including pensioners, are being exploited, and does she have any advice for people who are approached to take their benefits in this way?

Angela Eagle: My advice would be for people to treat with extreme caution anyone who comes to the door and offers them something for nothing. We are working with the energy companies on social tariffs. The Energy Bill that is going through this House will introduce a new form of mandatory social tariff that includes those on prepayment meters and ensures lower levels of charges for those who are poorest-something that I hope the hon. Gentleman will support.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that in this heated-at times overheated-Chamber, it is important to consider taking away the worry that our constituents, unlike ourselves, suffer. Is it possible to increase the number of weather stations that collect the data to ensure that those pensioners get the payments oftener than they get them at the moment, and thus take away the worry that has been expressed?

Angela Eagle: There are 85 weather stations in the system at the moment. There is always a balance to strike; too many measurement points make the system more complex. All but three of the weather stations have been triggered this year and we have paid more than 10 million cold weather payments, which have supported people through the unusual spells of very cold weather.

Nigel Waterson: While we can agree that older people have been well advised to keep their heating on during the recent bitter weather, does the Minister accept that they are dreading the bills arriving on their doormats? Many have had to choose between heating and eating-a decision that will prove fatal for tens of thousands. Why cannot the Government adopt our policies, including ensuring that poorer pensioners are on cheaper social tariffs, and energy efficiency improvements in every home?

Angela Eagle: We are doing that. We spent more than £20 billion on energy efficiency treatments in the Warm Front process since we came into government. I will not take lectures from Conservative Members, from whom we inherited soaring pensioner poverty, and who spent just £60 million on helping pensioners with the costs of their fuel payments when we came into government. We are spending £2.7 billion on winter fuel payments alone. We will not take lectures, given our record, from the Conservative party, given its pathetic attempts when it was in government.

Sally Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my older constituents have raised with me the impact of continuing low interest rates on their income from savings? What are the Government doing more widely to support pensioner incomes?

Angela Eagle: Most pensioners' savings income comprises a relatively small proportion of their overall income: 70 per cent. of pensioners receive less than £10 a week or no income from investments. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, for those who have such income, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the capital disregard in pension credit and pensioner-related housing and council tax benefit from £6,000 to £10,000 last November. That benefited a further 500,000 pensioners.

Incapacity Benefit

Jacqui Lait: What assistance her Department makes available to existing long-term incapacity benefit claimants to help them move into employment.

Jonathan R Shaw: We have invested heavily to support existing incapacity benefit customers into work. Since October 2003, pathways to work has helped 180,000 people into work. We are conducting a review into the employment support that we provide to disabled customers and we will bring forward proposals in the spring.

Jacqui Lait: I thank the Minister for that information. I am surprised that he did not mention that today's papers include an element of congratulation on the reduction in the number of people on incapacity benefit.
	In inviting the Minister to give me the figures for the number of people with mental health problems who have moved from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance or jobs, I also ask him to tell me what special training has been put in place for Jobcentre Plus staff to help people with mental health problems rather than reinforce their difficulties.

Jonathan R Shaw: I very much welcome the hon. Lady's question. We recently published our mental health employment strategy, part of which will ensure that each district has a specialist mental health employment adviser. In our strategy, we recognise that mental health multidisciplinary teams do not often include employment as part of the prescription to help people get better. We know that work is good for people; we have seen models of good practice around the country on which we based our strategy. We believe that the strategy and other measures, such as access to work, will ensure-as the hon. Lady and all of us hope-that people with mental health conditions experience far more increases in their employment opportunities.

James Clappison: Is it not likely that those who have been on employment and support allowance for many years and are looking to move into work, such as those with mental health problems, will need a great deal of individual help and support to get back into work? That is precisely what we propose, with specialist support in our work programme.
	Will the Minister answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) posed a moment ago? How many of those who have been reclassified from the ESA to jobseeker's allowance have actually found a job? May we have the figure, please?

Jonathan R Shaw: The ESA has been in operation for only one year. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome our employment strategy for mental health people. We have set out in that policy when people will be able to get, for example, better access to work, which the review suggested and we accepted. We have specialist staff in our jobcentres and we expect to see people with mental health conditions, which could mean a range of conditions. We have developed specialist help. The access to work scheme is helping people-£15 million was spent when the Opposition were in government, but that has risen to £137 million. We have done that in partnership with Mind, which has welcomed the arrangements, and a range of disability organisations in that sector has helped us. We have seen jobs for disabled people increase by 10 per cent. since this Government have been in office.

Young Person's Guarantee

Stephen Crabb: What assessment she has made of the likely effects of the young person's guarantee on the level of youth unemployment.

Chloe Smith: What assessment she has made of the likely effects of the young person's guarantee on the level of youth unemployment.

Yvette Cooper: The youth guarantee will provide more than 450,000 youth opportunities, supported by more than £1 billion of additional investment, and aims to help to get youth unemployment falling in the second half of this year.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but is it not the case that any positive effect of the young person's guarantee will be far outweighed by the tens of thousands of young people who will find that they are unable to take up their degree courses later this year as a result of the £1 billion cuts to the higher education budget announced today by her colleagues?

Yvette Cooper: That is simply untrue. We are already funding a significant increase in those in full-time education. In fact, in the past 12 months alone, the labour force survey shows an increase in those in full-time education of 200,000 compared with last year. We continue to support increases of those in higher education; the hon. Gentleman's party wants to cut the numbers because it wants to make it more elitist.

Chloe Smith: I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Conservative-run Norfolk county council, which today announced the creation of a further 300 jobs across Norfolk by April this year, but the future jobs fund is open to any organisation from the public, third or private sectors, so why has she got no other takers locally in Norwich, North?

Yvette Cooper: I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the additional future jobs fund jobs that Norfolk county council is signing up to. I think she should have a word with the county council about where those jobs should be located, but she may also want to have a word with Conservative Front Benchers, because they have opposed the future jobs fund and said they would abolish it. That would mean that huge numbers of people in Norfolk and Norwich would lose the job opportunities for which they have been working for so long.

Frank Field: I thank the Government for that scheme. Given its importance to our constituencies, will the Secretary of State consider, as each month goes past, publishing details in the Library of the numbers of guarantees that are delivered in each constituency? Is she also aware that there is a difference in the rake-off-the fees charged by those providing the guarantees? The local authority charges £15, but one private company takes a third of the Government money just to administer the scheme.

Yvette Cooper: I am very happy to look into the case that my right hon. Friend has in mind. Certainly, we will be producing official figures in due course-they will be produced by the Office for National Statistics in the normal way, to ensure that they are properly done.

Andrew Miller: I have been discussing the pluses and minuses of the changes that have taken place in Ellesmere Port with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform. One very big positive change has been a partnership between Jobcentre Plus and the local further education college. Jobcentre Plus is now located in the FE college, in very difficult circumstances-it is a big building site, thanks to this Government. Will the Secretary of State look at examples such as that one as a way of getting closer to young people, and working with them and their education providers to help to produce opportunities for work?

Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has been working very closely with employers-certainly in the retail sector-and jobcentres in his area to make more job opportunities available, including for young people. He will know that overall youth unemployment fell by 16,000 in the most recent figures and the claimant count fell by 7,000. It is worth noting that youth unemployment in the 1990s rose for a year and a half after the recession finished, and that in the '80s, it rose for four years after the recession finished. We are determined not to let that happen this time.

Theresa May: It cannot have escaped the Secretary of State's notice that youth unemployment has been rising for eight years under this Government, and today 927,000 young people are unemployed. The Government announced the young person's guarantee in April last year, but it will not be fully up and running until April this year. With one in five young people unable to find a job, why has it taken the Government two years since the start of the recession to give extra help to the young unemployed?

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady chose not to welcome the drop in youth unemployment in the most recent figures. We need to keep working to help the young unemployed. She mentioned the figures, so let me tell her the latest figures for the claimant count. We have 484,000 young people on the claimant count looking for work. In the early 1990s recession, that was 871,000 and in the mid-1980s it was more than 1 million. So the figure is half that of the mid-1980s, as a result of the additional investment that we have put in to help young people through the recession.

Theresa May: Youth unemployment on the International Labour Organisation count has gone up by more than 300,000 since Labour came into power in 1997. The young person's guarantee is virtually identical to the new deal for young people, which for many was a revolving door on to benefits. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) described the performance of the new deal for young people as derisory. Last year, fewer than one in four young people on the new deal found a job. Unlike our work programme, the young person's guarantee is not aimed at getting young people into sustainable work. Is not the only conclusion that Ministers are only interested in saving their own jobs, not in giving real help to young people?

Yvette Cooper: Again, the right hon. Lady talks nonsense. The ILO figures include people who are in full-time education but may also be looking for a part-time job, perhaps bar work. If we exclude the number in full-time education-which has rightly increased as a result of the action that this Government have taken-the figures today are 658,000 unemployed, compared with 832,000 in 1993 and again more than 1 million in 1985.
	The right hon. Lady asks about the future jobs fund and the youth guarantee, which are providing 470,000 opportunities across the country. The future jobs fund is providing a range of quality career opportunities for young people to get on the first step of the ladder. It is tragic that she wants to oppose that. She says that she wants her own work programme instead, but she could not fund it, because her party would cut £5 billion that we are putting in to support the unemployed.

Digital Inclusion

Alun Michael: What recent assessment she has made of the potential of StartHere in meeting her Department's objectives in respect of digital inclusion.

Jim Knight: Tackling digital exclusion is of fundamental importance to the Department. Inclusion improves employment prospects and helps people to save money, and levels of exclusion are relatively high among our customers. The Department routinely signposts sources of online access, skills and support, such as UK online centres' online basics course, and is looking for ways to do more. StartHere is an interesting service that has the potential to work together with directgov to provide a very simple starting point to accessing Government services online, with a clear focus on local support and helping digital inclusion, and we watch its progress with interest.

Alun Michael: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's positive response. Given that the recent evaluation report shows that StartHere is highly cost-effective in getting information to those who are on the wrong side of the digital divide, and that NHS Choices has chosen to use StartHere as a vehicle, is it not time for the DWP and others to use it too? Will he meet me to discuss how we might achieve that?

Jim Knight: I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend, and would be pleased to do so in respect of the case that he makes for StartHere, which certainly has a good champion in the Minister with responsibility for digital Britain, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who spends much of his time in the Treasury. He has been writing to many of us in government to stir up support for StartHere, which is something that I am looking at in the context of my responsibilities.

Public Sector Pension Deficit

David Heathcoat-Amory: If she will estimate the total pension deficit liability in the public sector.

Angela Eagle: We have been told that this question has been transferred to Her Majesty's Treasury.  [ Interruption. ]

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to the hon. Lady that the House was certainly not aware of that. I was not aware of it, the question is on the Order Paper, and I know that she will offer us an answer.

Angela Eagle: I am happy to offer an answer. The total pension deficit liability in the public sector is, off the top of my head, close to £600-odd billion, but this has to be seen in context. The pension liabilities are calculated over the next 80 years. In that context, it has to be borne in mind that the average size of a public sector pension is £4,000 to £5,000.

Mr. Speaker: So there is time for an update.

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is obvious that the Government do not have a clue. They cannot even find a Department to answer the question, so let me provide the answer. Outside agencies estimate that the public sector deficit liability is about £1 trillion, which is £1,000 billion. In the pre-Budget report, the Government were going to get that down by only £1 billion, which is one tenth of 1 per cent. Is it not obvious that in this area of policy and many others we need a change of Government to get the answers?

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman persists in scaremongering about the provision of public sector pensions for millions of low-paid public sector workers. As I have said, the average pension payment is £5,000 a year. Those liabilities are perfectly sustainable and comprise between 1.5 and 2 per cent. of GDP. If the right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that the Opposition do not think that that is sustainable, what he is saying to the electorate in the forthcoming election is that they will take away the public sector pension provision of millions of public sector workers who are out there working hard to keep our public services going in difficult times-and that, Mr. Speaker, is an absolute disgrace.

Independent Medical Assessments

John Mason: What mechanisms her Department has to ensure that independent medical assessments for work capability are consistent, accurate and fair.

Jonathan R Shaw: The work capability assessment is carried out by specifically trained health care professionals who are able to provide independent and robust advice to decision makers regarding customers' functional capabilities. Recruitment standards, training and stringent quality checks ensure that assessments are consistent, accurate and fair.

John Mason: I thank the Minister for that answer, but given that assessing mental health problems is particularly difficult, why does Atos Healthcare regularly ignore the patient's own GP?

Jonathan R Shaw: Atos takes account of representations made by GPs and other professionals. I recognise that there are competing demands on a number of hon. Members, whereby we want the number of people on sickness benefit to be reduced, but there are examples of cases in our constituency surgeries that raise concern-indeed, I might find myself writing to myself where I have a concern. In order to try to allay those concerns, the Secretary of State has asked me to arrange a seminar with Atos and Department for Work and Pensions staff, so that we can set out in detail how those medical assessments are made, and obviously I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to that. In addition, we will place in the Library the quality control reports for when we supervise Atos staff.

Michael Connarty: I am sure that this is not just a Scottish problem, although concern about the behaviour of Atos in Scotland is shared across the House. As the Minister will know from his postbag, I have written many times about the complete lack of confidence in the quality of people being sent to carry out these assessments. An example was a doctor who had been retired for almost 10 years taking away the benefits from a young man who had had serious Asperger's syndrome recorded on his medical records for almost 20 years. Can we not put a better system in place, so that people can have confidence that the people who come to see them know what they are talking about?

Jonathan R Shaw: We complete more than 30,000 assessments every month. With the new regime, we will see fewer people on employment and support allowance than on incapacity benefit. We are clear that that is the right way forward. I understand that hon. Members have constituency concerns, however, which is why I have arranged a seminar in which we can set out in detail how these assessments are meant to be performed. When there is a complaint or a concern about a particular individual, that individual is looked into and properly checked. If my hon. Friend is able to come along to the seminar and provide us with information, of course we will look at it. As I have said, there will be fewer people on ESA than on incapacity benefit. This is about looking at what people can do.

People Trafficking (Employment)

Anthony Steen: What training her Department's officials receive to enable them effectively to assist victims of human trafficking, migrants and refugees to find work.

Helen Goodman: Jobcentre Plus advisers have comprehensive training to equip them with the range of knowledge and skills that they need to support all customers. The training includes modules on how to help the most vulnerable customers and, where appropriate, how to signpost them to other relevant sources of help.

Anthony Steen: Does the Minister agree that, if the many thousands of human trafficking victims who come forward every year in this country were treated more generously, as they are in other countries, and given work permits for, say, a year, while waiting for prosecutions to be brought against their traffickers, they would be more likely to give evidence, which would lead to more successful prosecutions? Has she thought about granting a year's permit to those who come forward after being trafficked?

Helen Goodman: We always listen most carefully to the views of the hon. Gentleman, because, as chair of the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children, he knows a lot about this issue. I should like to bring him up to date. In 2009, a joint communiqué was issued by the Refugee Council and Jobcentre Plus. The operational framework is now being reviewed, and there will be further meetings in February and March. In addition, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be particularly satisfied to hear that the DWP and the Home Office have agreed that victims of trafficking may bypass the residency test.

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission

Graham Allen: What recent discussions she has had with the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission on measures to increase the amount of maintenance paid by young absent fathers.

Helen Goodman: Under the current rules, non-resident parents are obliged to pay £5 a week when they are on benefit and, as they enter work, their child maintenance calculation increases correspondingly as a proportion of their income. From 2011, when the new child maintenance scheme will be introduced, the payment for those on benefit will increase to £7. Furthermore, we have instructed commission officials working on detailed policy development for the new child maintenance scheme to review the maintenance status of full-time students. Although students are not currently required to pay child maintenance, we want to promote responsibility among all parents to support their children.

Graham Allen: Does the Minister agree that teenage pregnancy, which the Nottinghamshire teenage pregnancy taskforce is urgently looking into, is just as much a problem for young fathers and young men as it is for young mothers and young women? Will she ensure that a balance is struck between the two and kept in perspective, and commend the work being done by the taskforce to ensure that young fathers take on their responsibilities?

Helen Goodman: I certainly will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work as chair of the One Nottingham board, which met CMEC staff recently and agreed to develop new local initiatives, including preparing 45-minute lesson plans entitled "Do you want to be in my position?" These teaching packs for sex and relationship education are being piloted particularly in Nottingham.

Child Poverty

Simon Hughes: What recent estimate she has made of the proportion of children living in poverty in (a) the UK, (b) Greater London and (c) North Southwark and Bermondsey constituency.

Helen Goodman: The proportion of children in relative poverty in the UK for the period 2007-08 was 23 per cent. For the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 the figure for London as a whole was also 23 per cent. The figures for inner London and outer London were 27 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively.

Simon Hughes: Given that London is the sixth richest city in the world, can the Minister tell the House why child poverty levels, which mean that one in every two children in inner London are in poverty according to Government official figures, have remained similar for the past 10 years of the Labour Government?

Helen Goodman: I thought that I had just explained that the figure was closer to one in four, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic point that this is a major problem in London. A major reason for it is that parental employment is 8 per cent. lower than it is in the rest of the country. The London child poverty delivery group, which I chaired in the summer, is driving forward programmes on three key things: increasing the supply of part-time vacancies, increasing the take-up of tax credits and increasing the use of formal child care.

Joan Humble: The Minister will be aware that a high percentage of children living in poverty are those with disability. She mentioned child care. Will she liaise with ministerial colleagues to ensure that there is appropriate child care for children with disabilities, so that their parents feel confident, in going out to work, that they are leaving their child in good quality child care?

Helen Goodman: Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Families in which either a child or an adult is disabled are more likely to suffer. In order to deal with that, we have an extra element in the child tax credit system so that people can pay for child care for disabled children, which is often more expensive.

Topical Questions

Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Yvette Cooper: Today marks the centenary of the first labour exchange in this country, which was opened by Winston Churchill in 1910. At that time labour exchanges had separate entrances for men and women and separate rooms for skilled and unskilled workmen, and apparently were often difficult to find, as Winston Churchill himself got lost trying to open the Whitechapel road exchange. This is an opportunity, however, for us to pay tribute to the work of the staff of Jobcentre Plus. The service has modernised substantially and is offering a very good service, and people have worked extremely hard in what has been a very difficult year as a result of the recession. I urge hon. Members to take the opportunity to do as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and I have done and visit local jobcentres to thank the staff for all their hard work.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State says that Jobcentre Plus has modernised, but benefit claimants in my constituency have their claims assessed in Cornwall. Would it not be better if they were assessed locally, and preferably face to face?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we try to streamline services as much as possible in order to provide a fast turnaround and provide people with the information and support that they need as rapidly as possible. That means that we provide local services, but we also provide help through helplines and contact centres, in order to both be efficient and provide a local service. It is right that we get that balance, and that the hon. Gentleman knows that his constituents can go into a Jobcentre Plus and get help directly in their local area if they need to and if their personal circumstances mean that they have difficulties using the telephone.

Natascha Engel: My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the case of Zoey Smith, who, when she was pregnant, worked as a volunteer in a welfare rights office. She wrongly had her benefits stopped, and as a result gave birth two months prematurely. She could not cope, and she has disappeared off the face of the earth. The child has gone into care and the whole sorry story has been a disaster from beginning to end. Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits regime for pregnant women is incompatible with meeting our child poverty targets?

Helen Goodman: I am aware of the unhappy experience of my hon. Friend's constituent, which in essence came down to poor administration in her local benefit office. The existing rules for income support are consistent, however, with the rules for maternity leave. Both begin at the 11th week before the expected due date, which strikes a fair balance between the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests of the taxpayer. To pull the date forward would privilege the position of pregnant women over that of women in work.

Graham Stuart: Ministers have been asked twice how many of those on employment support allowance who have gone on to jobseeker's allowance have actually found work. Is the failure to answer because Ministers are embarrassed by the situation or is it because they simply do not know?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people who are eligible for employment support allowance then go on to the pathways to work programme, which has assisted 180,000 people through incapacity benefit and employment support allowance.

David Cairns: May I tell the Secretary of State that Inverclyde council's future jobs fund has been assessed by her Department as the second-best performing scheme in the whole of the UK? Will she give me an assurance that the focus of the scheme will continue to be on real jobs in the real economy in sectors such as construction, which will enable Inverclyde to see unemployment continuing to fall as it has been falling every month for the past five months?

Jim Knight: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The future jobs fund sets us apart from the Tories with their work programme in that we are offering real jobs for at least six months on at least the minimum wage while providing a community benefit. What my hon. Friend says about construction is hugely important because at least 10 per cent. are apprenticeship jobs and if it were not for the fiscal stimulus provided by this Government over the last year-building schools, building hospitals, building roads, building the infrastructure this country needs-our construction industry would be on its knees by now.

James Duddridge: What is going to be done about the £1 million incorrectly paid out to 10 claimants? Have we got the money back yet?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that six of the 10 debts occurred because of frauds or errors made by customers before 1995. The rate of error has now fallen to 0.6 per cent. and the work to recover the debt has had significant success. The recent report from the National Audit Office noted that the Department has improved its performance; the Comptroller and Auditor General said that there had been significant performance improvements.

Andrew MacKinlay: In a period of joined-up Government, will the Secretary of State tell us whether or not the Department of Health consulted her about the decision arbitrarily to tear up the reciprocal health agreement between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, given the ramifications it has for the chronically sick and disabled and the elderly who want to travel to and from the island?

Yvette Cooper: I will write to my hon. Friend about that.

Chloe Smith: The number of cases handled clerically by the Child Support Agency or the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has increased from 19,000 to 75,000 over the last three years at a cost of £3.7 million a month. Does the Department really have no plans to stem this staggering administrative failure before 2014?

Helen Goodman: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that there is a staggering administrative failure. On the contrary, record numbers of children are now receiving maintenance through the system, and the improvements we have implemented have lifted 100,000 children out of poverty.

Michael Clapham: Last week, I met a group of members of a miners' support group to discuss the application of industrial injuries disablement benefit for osteoarthritis of the knee, and they complained of wide variations between assessments given throughout the regions. Will my Ministers ask their medical advisers to look at the medical process to ensure that it is applied uniformly at centres throughout the country?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. The whole House would acknowledge what he has done to champion the cause of former miners across the country, including in my own area of Kent. It is important that there is confidence in the system, so we need continuity within the assessment process. I will most certainly look further at this issue and write to him accordingly.

Anne McIntosh: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Winston Churchill all those years ago on opening the first ever labour exchange and I also welcome the modernisation that has clearly taken place over the last 20 years. Does the Secretary of State agree that those living in rural areas face particular problems accessing job centres-in the Vale of York, for example, there is simply no jobcentre-and that this sometimes increases the frustrations that claimants experience? What are the Government proposing to do to make them more accessible?

Yvette Cooper: We want to do everything possible to make it easy for people in rural as well as urban areas to obtain the help that they need in order to find work. That is why, as well as providing jobcentres, we are making more information available online and by telephone, and using new technology to make it as accessible as possible. This is a question not just of the support that jobcentres can provide directly, but of our ensuring that we continue to invest in the economy, that jobs are created and that the economy grows, and that means sustaining investment and support for the economy rather than reducing it.

Alun Michael: In view of this afternoon's outrageous attempt by the political scavengers on the Conservative Front Bench to affect an interest in young people, will my right hon. Friend remind them of the full generation of young people who were abandoned without hope and opportunity by the last Conservative Government?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is correct. The level of claimant unemployment in the 1980s was twice as high as it is today, and young people were abandoned for many years without support and help. We must never abandon a generation in that way again. We should bear in mind that unemployment kept increasing after the recession had ended. That is why investment to support the recovery this year is so important now.

David Heathcoat-Amory: In earlier exchanges about the size of the public sector deficit liability, the Minister-apart from not knowing which Department was responsible-gave an inaccurate figure. Even the Office for National Statistics believes that the figure is £810 billion. Then she said that it did not matter. Does she really believe that a deficit liability of that scale, in addition to the projected national debt of £1.5 trillion, is of no concern to this Government? If so, we need a change of Government.

Angela Eagle: What I really object to is the right hon. Gentleman's pretence that the problems caused to the global financial system by the greed and excess of a very small number of people should be paid for by our taking from public sector workers their modest pension support, which amounts to an average of £5,000 a year. That is the difference between our values and those of the Conservative party. We will protect such support, whereas they cannot wait to rip up the public sector pension contract for all public sector workers.

Lindsay Hoyle: People with skills within the construction sector have just been made redundant and unemployed and have signed on at my jobcentre. They want to work on the railways, but they need certification in order to do so, and the jobcentre will not pay for it. There is therefore a void, leaving people on the unemployment register when jobs are available. All that is needed is someone to help with funding. What does the Minister think?

Jim Knight: I am sure that my hon. Friend has studied carefully the White Paper that we published last month. One of the things that we seek to do is increase our personal advisers' flexibility so that they can give people more personalised support in the circumstances that he has described. We particularly want to increase flexibility in their use of the new single skills fund that we have created, along with the skills accounts, so that when there is a real prospect of a job at the end of the process we can deploy funds to help people.

Hugo Swire: More than 1.7 million pensioners are currently missing out on their cold weather payments because they do not claim pension credit. What are the Government doing to ensure that pensioners do not have to do without those payments during the current spell of particularly cold weather?

Angela Eagle: We devote a great deal of time and effort to trying to ensure that pension credit is claimed by those who are eligible for it. We have partnerships with 200 local authorities, we organise regional advertising, and we arrange 13,000 visits a week to vulnerable pensioners. Only last week I spoke to a pensioner who had just been told that she was eligible for an extra £32 a week, and that she would not have to pay her council tax.
	Pension credit makes a real difference to pensioners' quality of life. We want them to claim, and we are reaching out to them. If there is anything that the hon. Gentleman can do in his own constituency, such as talking to local pensioners, we shall be more than grateful.

Rob Marris: Will the Minister explain why the Government are not encouraging the Child Support Agency to get on with it and transfer people from the old system to the new, fairer, percentage-based one?

Helen Goodman: I am sure my hon. Friend realises that it takes time to build the new computer system for the new system. We do not want a repeat of the sort of shambles and collapse that we have seen in the past. We therefore think that this is a case of more haste, less speed.

Robert Wilson: Unemployment in my constituency is now significantly higher than it was in 1997. Despite the initiatives of the past 13 years, were not young people better off in work in 1997 than out of work in 2010?

Yvette Cooper: As I pointed out earlier, the claimant count for young people is, in fact, about half what it was in the '80s. It is a major concern that young people have been affected by the recession, however, and that is exactly why this party and this Government are funding the youth guarantee, providing hundreds of thousands of additional opportunities for young people, but the hon. Gentleman's party opposes that and wants to cut it.  [Interruption.] If he really cares about young people, he should have a word with his own Front-Bench team.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognise that the House is eagerly awaiting the Foreign Secretary's statement, but, even so, far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. That is very unfair on both the Member asking the question and the Minister answering it.

Anne Begg: Although most people agree with the principles of the employment and support allowance, there is a group of people who pass the work capability assessment, but who may still have health issues that are acting as a barrier to work. Will Ministers ensure that they are given proper advice, instead of being put on to jobseeker's allowance and then being ignored so that they do not get the specialist help to make it easier for them to find work?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We know that some people who undertake the work capability assessment and are found to be able to work may still have a health condition that makes things difficult for them in some form or another, or that may affect their attitude to work. It is important that they get appropriate help and support. That is exactly why we are looking again at the pathways programme-at how it works and to whom it applies-and at what kind of support people should have, regardless of what kind of benefit they are on.

Greg Mulholland: It is striking that Shelter and landlord associations both agree that the eight-week limit for the local housing allowance trigger to kick in, and for that to be looked at when someone has gone into arrears, is causing a problem. It is causing people to get into debt and landlords not to get their money and to be put off taking on social tenants. Are the Government reviewing that?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware of the fact that 200,000 more people than in 2008 are currently in the private rented sector. Of course we believe that housing benefit can be improved; that is why we have just published a consultation document setting out our proposals.

Paul Burstow: Given that the Office for National Statistics has just revealed that 2 million pensioners in this country are still living below the breadline, will the Government look again at their policy and their commitment to means testing by revisiting Margaret Thatcher's decision to breach the link with earnings, and instead reintroducing that valuable earnings link?

Angela Eagle: The House has legislated to ensure that pensions will be linked to earnings within the lifetime of the next Parliament, and I also hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the ONS pointed out that we had broken the link between old age and poverty for the first time in our history. We inherited soaring levels of pensioner poverty from the Conservative party. We have reversed that trend, but we know that there is still more to do.

Afghanistan and Yemen

David Miliband: Mr Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on the Afghanistan conference that took place on 28 January and the Yemen meeting the previous day.
	It is a grim but important feature of all discussion on Afghanistan that we remember the loss of life-coalition and Afghan-in the last eight years. As I saw for myself again two weeks ago in Kandahar, Lashkar Gah and Kabul, British troops are showing fortitude beyond measure, and their families support beyond compare, both of which deserve the recognition of the whole nation. The stakes are high not only for those serving in Afghanistan but for all the Afghan people, for the south Asian region, for the credibility of the NATO alliance, and, ultimately, for our national security.
	As I explained when I spoke in this House on 14 January, 2010 will be a decisive year for Afghanistan. With a new Government, a refreshed counter-insurgency strategy, and a commitment to increase international troop numbers by some 60,000, the Afghans and their allies now have the chance to reverse the momentum of the insurgency, if the military and civilian effort is directed towards a durable political settlement in Afghanistan.
	That was the impetus behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to convene the London conference.

Bernard Jenkin: Where is he?

David Miliband: He is in Northern Ireland, actually.
	Our aim was to mobilise international resources-military and civilian-behind a clear political strategy to help to deliver the ambitious agenda that President Karzai set out at his inauguration last November. Our goals are threefold: first, to win over the active support of more of the Afghan population; secondly, to split the insurgency; and, thirdly, to encourage Afghanistan's neighbours to become part of the solution. Following my consultations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Washington, Istanbul and Brussels, representatives from more than 70 countries and international organisations travelled to London to attend the conference. The communiqué, which was agreed among all conference participants, provides the detail of what was agreed.
	First, in respect of security, the focus was on the Afghan national security forces. The growth and development of the indigenous security forces are intended to give the Afghan population the confidence to resist Taliban intimidation and bribery. Afghanistan now has almost 200,000 soldiers and police, and they are already assuming greater responsibility for military operations, but the London conference agreed new, more ambitious targets to increase the Afghan national security forces by more than 50 per cent. by October 2011 by training 70,000 additional members of the Afghan national army and 38,000 more police.
	The conference also marked the beginning of the transition process, by agreeing the necessary conditions under which we can begin, district by district and province by province, the process of transferring responsibility for security from international forces to Afghan forces. The intention is for some provinces to transition by late 2010 or early 2011, on the road to meeting President Karzai's target that within three years Afghans should have taken the lead and be conducting the majority of operations in insecure areas. The additional troops-Afghan and international-will mean that the insurgency will come under increasing military pressure. President Karzai is launching a peace and reintegration programme for those who can be persuaded to switch sides; the rest will face growing military danger. It is essential that all the ethnic groups of Afghanistan are given a route back into Afghan society, as long as they respect the Afghan constitution and break links with al-Qaeda-we support all effort towards this goal. The Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund announced last Thursday is the vehicle through which the international community will provide financial assistance, and some $140 million has already been pledged for the first year.
	Governance and development was the second priority for the London conference. Local and provincial government in Afghanistan is chronically weak; less than a quarter of Afghanistan's 364 governors have electricity in their offices and some receive only $6 a month in expenses. That is why the conference agreed to provide additional support to train, over the next two years, 12,000 sub-national civil servants in core administrative functions vital to the exercise of local and provincial power. However, if the Afghan Government are to win the support of more of the population, they need to govern in the population's interests, so the commitments that the Government made at the conference to take steps to end the culture of impunity are important. They have promised to do the following: first, to strengthen the independent High Office of Oversight in order to investigate and sanction corrupt officials; secondly, to bring their laws in line with the UN convention against corruption; and thirdly, to invite a group of Afghan and international experts to develop benchmarks for progress and report regularly against those benchmarks-their first visit will take place within the next three months.
	Those promises must be translated into rapid action. The international community again pledged its support on Thursday, and for the first time it said that, once key conditions are met, it will increase the proportion of development assistance channelled through the Afghan Government, and will support the Government to meet those conditions.
	Development assistance is important in its own right in Afghanistan, which is the fourth poorest country in the world, but it will also help to draw people away from the insurgency and the drugs trade. That is the significance of Thursday's announcement that Afghanistan will receive up to $1.6 billion extra in debt relief from major creditors and that there will be a new International Monetary Fund programme from June 2010. The legal economy-notably agriculture-needs substantial support, and progress in reducing drug production is important in that respect, as well as in its own right.
	The third element is relations between the countries of the region. The situation in Afghanistan threatens to destabilise the whole of south Asia: crime, drugs, terrorism and migration spill across borders. There is a growing awareness within the region that the status quo in Afghanistan benefits nobody. Afghanistan's neighbours also increasingly accept that no country within the region, let alone the international community, will allow Afghanistan to become a client state.
	In these twin changes-a recognition that a client state is out of reach for all and that an unstable state is damaging for all-is the seed of a shared interest. That shared interest should be the basis of greater regional co-operation. Each neighbour needs to know that their restraint and co-operation will be reciprocated so they need reassurances about each other's behaviour and intentions. That is why last Tuesday I attended the regional summit in Istanbul to discuss how Afghanistan's neighbours can support stability in Afghanistan and enhance regional co-operation. At the London conference the Afghan Government requested that the relevant regional bodies develop a co-ordinated plan for Afghanistan's regional engagement as soon as possible. The prize of regional co-operation is immense: Afghanistan's neighbours will cut off the lines of funding, support and shelter that stretch across Afghanistan's borders.
	This political strategy and the agreements reached on Thursday need to be pursued with drive, determination and without delay. The Afghan Government will host a further conference in Kabul later this spring. By then, President Karzai will need to have made real progress on security, governance and development.
	The international community also has an important role to play in ensuring effective implementation. That is why three new international appointments are being made: at the UN, where there is an upgraded Senior Representative; in NATO, where the NATO Secretary-General has created a new NATO Senior Civilian Representative to strengthen the co-ordination of development and governance work with the military effort-our ambassador in Kabul, Mark Sedwill, took up this role on Thursday-and in the EU to create greater unity of civilian command.
	Afghanistan and Yemen are 2,000 miles apart. They have diverse histories, different cultures and are fighting different enemies, but there are common themes. In both cases the lack of development, weak governance and absence of security provide a vacuum for extremists who threaten our shores. In both cases, these underlying long-term causes must be addressed.
	The purpose of the London meeting on Yemen on 27 January, as agreed with President Saleh of Yemen, was threefold: first, to forge international consensus about the challenges the country faces; secondly, to build impetus behind the economic and political reform agenda; and thirdly, to improve international co-ordination of support for the Yemeni people and Government.
	The Government of Yemen were represented by Prime Minister Mujawar. The Foreign Ministers from the Gulf Co-operation Council countries and the key regional and international partner nations all participated alongside representatives of the EU, the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international institutions. Prime Minister Mujawar gave an honest appraisal of the challenges his country faces-"brutally honest", in the words of the US Secretary of State. The threat from al-Qaeda has put Yemen in the headlines but it has long been the poorest country in the Arab world, with a rapidly growing population, fast dwindling oil and water reserves, an armed conflict in the north and increasing civil instability in the south.
	All present were clear that responsibility for tackling those challenges lay first and foremost with the Yemeni Government, but decisions were taken to upgrade international support in five important respects. First, all present committed to support the Government of Yemen in the fight against al-Qaeda. The meeting welcomed the recent UN sanctions committee decisions on designation and called on all states to enforce the terms of the designation under UN Security Council resolution 1267.
	Secondly, the meeting agreed to engage in further helping Yemen to address its broader security challenges, including through increased international support for the Yemen coastguard. Thirdly, Prime Minister Mujawar confirmed that his Government would continue to pursue their reform agenda, notably on economic reform, and start discussion of an IMF programme. The director of the IMF made a compelling case for the way in which economic reform could be supported by the IMF. Fourthly, participants agreed concrete actions to improve the disbursement of aid, an issue that was raised when we discussed this matter in the House two weeks ago. The GCC Secretary-General called a meeting of Gulf and other international donors to share analysis of the barriers to effective aid disbursement and establish a joint dialogue with the Government of Yemen on their reform priorities. The meeting will take place in Riyadh on 27 and 28 February.
	Finally, the 25 countries and organisations represented also agreed to establish a Friends of Yemen group to help the Government implement their national reform agenda. Two working groups on economy and governance and justice and law enforcement will report at the first Friends of Yemen meeting.
	Conferences and meetings can seem-and are-a long way from the daily danger of improvised explosive devices in Lashkar Gah or the 40 per cent. unemployment rate in Yemen, but neither problem will be resolved without coherent plans confidently advanced by sovereign Governments with huge support from the international community. As a result of last week's efforts, there is a new confidence and clarity. The test is to turn these words into deeds. That is what we are now committed to doing.

William Hague: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Before turning to Afghanistan, may I ask a couple of questions about the meeting on Yemen? We welcome both that meeting and the creation of a Friends of Yemen group, but is he confident that the Government of Yemen will take the urgent and concrete action on political and economic reform that they pledged to take when they were at the meeting? Did he detect a willingness from our European and other international allies to devote resources to the sort of specific initiatives that Britain and the United States have started in Yemen to buttress those efforts?
	I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan, whose work I have also seen for myself in recent weeks. I also pay tribute to their families here in Britain and to the 251 service personnel who have given their lives. I agree with his description of 2010 as a "decisive year" for Afghanistan. We welcome the hosting of the conference in London, and we support its conclusions. Like the Government, we are committed to ensuring that there is sufficient stability in Afghanistan for Afghans to look after their own security without presenting a danger to the rest of the world. To that end, the strategy that has been adopted in recent months must be given time and support to succeed, and must be accompanied by a viable political process alongside our military efforts.
	I want to ask about three main areas: the military strategy, the political strategy and the transition to Afghan control. On the military strategy, we welcome the decisions taken by other countries to commit additional manpower. Can the Foreign Secretary say how many of the 9,000 additional non-US forces that have been announced will be stationed in the south, where the heaviest fighting is? Will every effort be made to ensure that the use of those forces will not be hampered by restrictive rules of engagement? One new benchmark is the achievement of a total of 300,000 Afghan security forces by October next year. Can he tell us the projected cost of that expansion? Is he satisfied that the Afghan state will be able to meet the cost that that will entail over the long term? Can he assure the House that NATO trainers and mentors will be in place in sufficient numbers to achieve that target? The conference communiqué urges countries to provide more support for the reform of the Afghan national police. Can he say when the detail of that support will be fleshed out? Can he confirm that there is still no agreed national strategy for the reform of the police? When does he expect that finally to be in place? On the civilian aspects of the strategy, we welcome the appointment of a new NATO Civilian Representative and a new UN special representative. As it is also intended that there will be a new EU special representative with strengthened powers, what mechanism is being put in place to co-ordinate the work of those three officials to avoid the duplication that has happened in the past?
	On the political strategy, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the fairness and credibility of the elections that are now scheduled for September are of huge importance, given what happened in the presidential elections? Does he think it is the true intention of the Afghan authorities to run a seriously improved electoral process? How will confidence be given to opposition parties that they will be given a fair chance to compete in those elections? Corruption is one of the key problems that needs to be addressed by the Karzai Government. The communiqué talks about
	"empowering an independent High Office of Oversight",
	Can he shed some light on the composition and powers that are intended for that office?
	As the Foreign Secretary has said, at the conference there was a major focus on the new Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund. Can he provide more detail about how the expenditure of that huge amount of money will be overseen? Who will be responsible for the distribution of the funds at a regional level, and how will oversight be ensured? Is he confident that the scheme will be designed to avoid creating perverse incentives for non-combatants to join the insurgency in order to benefit from the fund later?
	In his evidence to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed "relocation and deradicalisation programmes" for former Taliban members. Can he say whether such programmes have now been agreed and, if so, where they will take place and whether any lead nation will take responsibility for them? It is well known that Taliban elements operate in Pakistan's border area, posing a threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does he therefore envisage any of those funds being channelled to the Pakistani Government for the same purposes, or will we encourage that Government to make their own arrangements?
	On the final issue-the handover-the conference said that a number of provinces, but an unspecified number, would be transferred to Afghan control by the end of this year or by the start of 2011. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether that timetable has slipped, given the Prime Minister's specific commitment in November that five Afghan provinces needed to transferred by the end of 2010? The communiqué says that the goal is that Afghan forces take responsibility for physical security within five years, but President Karzai says that the training and equipping of Afghan security forces may take up to 10 years and that they will need outside assistance for up to 15 years. Does the Foreign Secretary share those assessments?
	The goals set at the London conference are important and worth while in our view, but we must remember that many of the commitments made at the last London conference on Afghanistan in 2006 have never been met. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this time around, as the British public wait to see whether progress can really be made and whether our military effort can succeed, delivery on the commitments that have been made is absolutely indispensable?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the strategies that have been developed in respect of Yemen and Afghanistan.
	On confidence about the implementation of the plans agreed by the Government of Yemen, such confidence should be born of the deeds rather than the words that have been used. It is obviously better for words to be used than not to be used; but in the end, one learns to look for actions, rather than words, to give real confidence. However, the depth of the problems that Yemen faces and the remarkable document that the Government of Yemen produced about those problems suggest that no one can accuse them of being in denial.
	On the devotion of resources, notably by European countries, the right hon. Gentleman allowed, unusually for him, a degree of scepticism to emerge about what he thought other European countries might be doing. That would come rather amiss to the German and Dutch contributors to the development effort in Yemen. After all, their contributions are on a par with ours, and that commitment is welcome. So I am sorry to disappoint him, but there is no division in Europe on this issue or on its importance.
	On Afghanistan, the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the need for additional manpower and for caveats to be lifted. I therefore think that it is worth putting on record the fact that the German Government announced last week not only an extra 500 troops-rising, I think, to 900 for the elections-but the removal of their caveats. That is the sort of decision that we welcome and want to be taken much more widely.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is no way in the immediate future that the budget of the Government of Afghanistan will be able to support a security force of some 200,000, never mind 300,000. In that context, the answer to his question about the Afghan budget is that, no, its Government will not be able to cover it. It will need to be covered from outside, but, obviously, the twin track of a military strategy and a civilian strategy, including an economic one, is very important. Certainly, current estimates are that we-at least, the international community-will have to support the Afghan security effort for some time to come.
	In respect of NATO mentors and trainers, the most recent concern has been for Afghan troops to be delivered, mentored and trained. I am pleased about the way in which the NATO training effort is now working. The mentoring and partnering strategy takes us a long way forward.
	In respect of the police, I will send the right hon. Gentleman the national strategy that was recently published by the Interior Ministry of the Government of Afghanistan. I commend the national strategy to him. He may have met Interior Minister Atmar-perhaps he has not-who has been responsible for the Afghan national police force for a year or 18 months and is doing an excellent job.
	On EU representation, the proposal to replace two EU representatives, representing the Commission and the Council, with one is definitely a step forward of itself. On the relationship with the NATO and UN command, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the UN is superordinate in its role in any country-it is the apex of the international effort-but it will have a different role from that of the NATO Senior Civilian Representative, whose job is to combine military and civilian efforts.
	On the elections, it is clear that, for reasons of both security and electoral reform, it was hard to see those elections taking place on 22 May, which was the first date suggested. The need for reform in the intervening months to September is essential. The Opposition parties want elections but those can take place only if progress is made on reform, and we are working on that.
	On the peace and reintegration council, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the detailed implementation of this policy will be critical to its effectiveness. The purposes of the fund, which are to provide employment, to provide security and to force the pace on the deradicalisation agenda, are the right outcomes. He asked who was the lead nation. The lead nation must be Afghanistan. The concept of lead nationhood was applied to G8 nations after the 2003 Bonn conference, but I think we have a much clearer method now of putting the Afghans in the lead and of ensuring the right balance between international and Afghan responsibility.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked questions about the number of provinces that will be under Afghan security leadership. The timetable has not slipped. As the Prime Minister said in his speech on Thursday, he thinks that more progress will be made than people realise, but it is important that we do this on a conditions basis. The figure of five years that the right hon. Gentleman raised is President Karzai's figure from his inauguration speech. It is he who said that within five years the whole of Afghanistan, every province, should have Afghan security leadership. That does not mean the end of an international support role, but it is a very different role.
	Finally, it is clear that the efforts that were made in 2006 at the London conference need to be supplemented. The Kabul conference will be able to renew the London compact, but it will do so on the basis of a strategy that has not only far greater clarity and coherence, but far greater international support. That is something that we have to build on in this decisive year.

Edward Davey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for his courtesy in providing an advance copy. He was right to begin with a tribute to our British troops and their families. The whole House stands together in admiration and gratitude for their courage and sacrifice.
	Although the true success of the London conference on Afghanistan can be known only a few years hence, may I begin by welcoming the communiqué wholeheartedly? Liberal Democrats have long argued for a coherent political strategy to sit alongside the military strategy, and the conference appeared to mark the first internationally agreed attempt to define that political strategy in detail. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that for many people, success for Britain's involvement in this important mission rests crucially on deepening and strengthening this new political strategy as the only realistic way forward?
	Given its significance, can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the international dimension of the political strategy, especially the engagement of all Afghanistan's immediate and near neighbours in a comprehensive approach to regional peace? In what forums will this aspect be pursued? Can he say a little more about what was discussed and planned at the regional summit in Istanbul, especially in relation to Saudi Arabia and India/Pakistan relations?
	On the national elements of the new political strategy, I welcome the breadth of the proposals to tackle corruption, while sounding a sceptical note on delivery. Was it made clear to President Karzai that neither the international community nor his own people are likely to believe that the Afghan Government are serious about corruption until some of the more powerful warlords and their placemen are ejected from the top table?
	I especially welcome the proposals for the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund. The Foreign Secretary will know that Liberal Democrats were widely criticised for such ideas earlier last year, but I am delighted that he and his colleagues last week did not shy away from the controversy. Does he agree that planning the structure and implementation of any payments to former Taliban fighters is critical, to make sure not only that are there no perverse incentives, but that there is clear financial support for Afghans who did not co-operate with the Taliban? But does he also agree that it must make sense to hold out real prospects of employment and hope to insurgents who are often mercenaries and rarely Taliban ideologues?
	Can the Foreign Secretary say what plans there are to provide the necessary security to former Taliban fighters-their families and villages-who decide to defect and switch sides? Given that some NGOs already report an upsurge in the assassination of local leaders whom the Taliban suspect of being ready to defect, does he accept that this is a pressing issue if the counter-insurgency strategy is to work?
	On Yemen, I welcome what seems to have been a worthwhile exercise, especially in relation to domestic social, economic and political reform. The right hon. Gentleman reported to the House that the Gulf Co-operation Council is to meet later this month to review what aid can be given from countries in the region. Can he say a little more about the help and support that is being offered Yemen from across the Arab world, not just the Gulf, and whether the wealthy members of the Arab League have offered their support?

David Miliband: I find myself in agreement-non-violent, I hasten to say-with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the political strategy. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) asked about Pakistan and international engagement, however, and I failed to answer him. He inquired about whether the reintegration fund would be available on the Pakistan side of the border, and the answer is no, because the situation involves Afghans who should be in the Afghan political system, not in the Pakistani political system.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked which forums would be used for international engagement, and the region is debating that issue. There are already four or five different regional organisations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and others, and there is an issue about co-ordination. There is also an issue, which the Afghan Government must address, about whether there should be a specific effort on Afghanistan. I think that there is a strong case for it.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that corruption afflicts many levels of the Afghan system. In a recent BBC poll, 95 per cent. of Afghans complained of corruption in local policing and governance. The importance of that was made clear not just to President Karzai but to all his Ministers who were at the conference, and they replied that it was important for them, too. However, implementation will be a key point, as the hon. Gentleman said, and the oversight board and other committees will be important in that respect. On local corruption, local police wages are important, and the way in which security is offered on the routes between major cities is an absolutely key point, so the security effort and the anti-corruption effort go together.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the implementation of the peace and reconciliation effort. The money that is available does not exist as pots of money to be paid to individuals; it exists to provide for jobs, for deradicalisation and for the security of those who return to their communities. He is right to emphasise the importance of security, because the intimidation that the Taliban apply to the local population applies in spades to their former comrades. On that point, the security effort is the key.
	On Yemen, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Gulf countries have pledged large sums of money; we do not suffer from an absence of pledges on Yemen. We need them to be turned into reality, because of those made in London in 2006, only 7 per cent. have been delivered, notably those from the Gulf countries. An important part of the Gulf Co-operation Council's engagement will be not only Yemen's road to GCC membership or labour market issues, but aid issues.

Mike Gapes: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement on Yemen. On Afghanistan, I particularly welcome the appointment of our ambassador, Mark Sedwill, to the important NATO co-ordination post.
	My right hon. Friend referred to a proposal whereby, once the relevant conditions are met, the proportion of development assistance that is channelled through the Afghan Government will increase. Will he give the House more information about that proportion? Will it also apply, as a coalition of non-governmental organisations has called for it to apply, to money that is currently disbursed by the military-both through the provincial reconstruction teams and, directly, by the US military in Afghanistan?

David Miliband: The figure that was used in the communiqué was 50 per cent., and that is the aim once the conditions have been met.
	I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the importance of Mark Sedwill's upgraded role, and a vital part of his role will be to knit together the local counter-insurgency strategy with the local provincial reconstruction team effort. The transition to lead-security responsibility needs to be accompanied by political developments.
	Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will permit me, while the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is in his place, to correct something that I said earlier. I had been reliably informed that the Prime Minister was on his way to Belfast, but it now transpires that he is not-for various reasons that I shall not go into. I apologise for having got that wrong earlier.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fifteen further Members are seeking to catch my eye. I want as always to accommodate everybody, if at all possible, but there is a motion to follow and then the Committee stage of a very important Bill, so brief questions and brief answers are required.

Malcolm Rifkind: The day before the Afghanistan conference, the Russian Foreign Minister said that his Government would consider an additional contribution to help the Afghan Government. Did the Russian Foreign Minister make any such announcement? What reasons did the Iranians give as to why, at the end of the day, they did not attend the conference?

David Miliband: The short answer is no, the Russian Prime Minister did not make such an announcement. He made a positive contribution to the conference about the Russian commitment to help in a range of ways, but he did not make a specific commitment. I am afraid that the Iranian authorities have not given any explanation, clear or otherwise, about their non-attendance. Iran was the only country not to attend, despite repeated invitations and the extension of visas into Tehran, Istanbul and elsewhere. I made clear my regret to the Iranian Foreign Minister when I saw him in Davos on Friday.

Keith Vaz: I declare my interest on Yemen.
	I thank the Foreign Secretary for holding the conference with the Prime Minister and for sending the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to Yemen tomorrow. As the Foreign Secretary has told the House, only 7 per cent. of the £3 billion pledged in 2006 has been paid over to Yemen, and that is the problem-promises and no delivery. There would be one easy win for the Government. We have today announced that body scanners are to be made available at Heathrow and Manchester. If Yemen had just one body scanner at Sana'a airport, it would be able to start its direct flights to London again. Such practical measures, to which I know my right hon. Friend is committed because he is a practical Foreign Secretary, can help that very poor country.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that a comprehensive assessment of the travel needs is taking place at Sana'a airport. Yemeni airlines decided to suspend their flights to London pending the conclusion of the efforts to improve security. I will ensure that the Transport Secretary is aware of his suggestion about body scanners, but I think that a rather more comprehensive approach will be needed at Sana'a airport.

James Arbuthnot: I welcome this statement. In the past, Britain has been the lead nation on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, with the Germans leading on the police and the Italians on the judiciary. That concept has never really worked-was it abandoned last week?

David Miliband: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the concept has not worked well. It was not formally buried at the meeting last week, but the emphasis that has been placed over the past two or three years on Afghan leadership and international support reflects a recognition of a different, and better, way of doing things.

Paul Flynn: Is it sensible to try to fight bribery with bribery or corruption with corruption, as history proves that paying danegeld means you never get rid of the Dane?

David Miliband: As I said today and last Thursday, comparing the effort that is being made to ensure that there is security and employment for former Taliban who come into the political system in Afghanistan with the rental that is paid by the Taliban to attack their own communities, never mind our forces, is a comparison that I do not recognise. Nor do I recognise my hon. Friend's reference to corruption, certainly not-I am sure that he would not have been suggesting this-in respect of our own efforts. The equivalence that he seeks to suggest is one that I do not think is right.

Menzies Campbell: I am sure that I do not have to persuade the Foreign Secretary that if al-Qaeda were to become established in Yemen, that would constitute a threat to the whole region, including some very important allies of this country. Does he therefore agree that if security in Yemen is to be enhanced, it will take something rather more than additional support for the Yemeni coastguard?

David Miliband: Yes. The communiqué issued after the meeting gave a rather wider range of factors. Obviously, the presence of al-Qaeda on the Arabian peninsula in Yemen is a recent sign that it is willing to launch attacks outside the region as within it, and that is very significant. However, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the security effort is not limited to coastal matters.

Gisela Stuart: In view of the recently released video and the Foreign Secretary's presence in the Chamber today, is there any more that he can say about attempts to secure the release of Paul and Rachel Chandler?

David Miliband: All Members will have felt heart-wrenched by the video that was released yesterday. As I said this morning, the political and diplomatic effort continues, in very close liaison with the family. That is the best thing to say at this stage. Everybody's heart goes out to the Chandlers, and we all continue to make every effort to help to resolve this very distressing case.

Bernard Jenkin: As a member of the Defence Committee who recently visited Afghanistan, I can attest to the new sense of political, civil and military direction there. However, may I draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to the fact that the Afghan national defence university cannot get off the ground for the lack of 15 British military officers whose presence would enable the United Kingdom to lead that hugely influential project? May I put that into his in-tray and ask him to look into it? It is worth lifting the military cap by just a few officers in order for us to be able to lead that enormously important project.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has taken a long-standing interest in the Afghan conflict and he and I have had repeated and, I think, productive discussions about it. I will certainly take up his point. I know that there are Afghans at Sandhurst receiving training, and I will look into the return of officers to Afghanistan to make a difference at the national defence university.

Gordon Prentice: The Speaker of the Afghan Parliament told me last week that there are 107 political parties in Afghanistan. Was there any discussion at the conference about consolidating that number to make it more manageable? Is that realistic?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I saw Speaker Qanuni in Kabul two weeks ago. It is fair to say that the definition of a party in the Afghan context is pretty loose, and not the same as we might recognise in this country. However, the amount of fragmentation and splintering reflects the sort of tribal society that it is, and also emphasises the importance of the parliamentary elections. A presidential system, by definition, elects one person, whereas a parliamentary system allows a broader range of interests to be represented. We did not take it upon ourselves to try to reform the Afghan political party system last Thursday, but the civil society representatives who spoke at the conference were insistent about the need to open up the political process to more people from community groups and civil society more generally.

Angus Robertson: One thousand Scottish and Scottish-based service personnel are set to be deployed to Helmand in April. They and their families, to whom we all pay tribute, deserve to know when it is expected that violence will diminish and new deployments will not be necessary. When does the Foreign Secretary believe that military intervention will end?

David Miliband: The steps towards the shared goal of all parties in the House are: for the Afghans to take on lead security responsibility-a clear timetable has been set for that-and for a political settlement to take the place of the combat in which British troops from all parts of the UK have been engaged for the past eight years. The hon. Gentleman knows that the efforts of soldiers from Scotland are part of an effort to keep all citizens of this country safe, and it therefore deserves all-party support.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, if we are to get out of this war, we must make bigger philosophical shifts than have been announced today? However, a few cautious sentences from him and others over the weekend indicate that maybe the political strategy is more important than continuing the war. With Northern Ireland, we had to make shabby compromises, let prisoners out and all the rest, which the media regarded as bad at the time. Yet that is now accepted as something that was right to do at the time. That is what we must do with Afghanistan. It may be that, in this thinly attended House, a few words have been said today that mark the end, and getting out of Afghanistan much sooner.

David Miliband: I appreciate my hon. Friend's perspective. The military and civilian effort is in the service of a political strategy. A political settlement in Afghanistan involves three things: al-Qaeda being kept out, the tribes being kept on side, and the neighbours supporting stability. That is the sort of political settlement that my hon. Friend recognises and that we are seeking.

David Tredinnick: Do not the peace and reintegration programme and the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund represent a dramatic shift in Government policy? Are we not attempting to buy some aspects of the enemy? Given that we have now reached that point, why did we not reach it earlier? How many British lives would have been saved if the Government had examined that option more closely earlier?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will know from my speeches and those of the Prime Minister that the Government have advocated such a strategy for a long time. However, it is not right to say that it is only just being tried. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, referred to the 2006 attempts at reintegration and reconciliation, which were done in a way that included some of the perverse incentives to which the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) referred and were not administered correctly. However, the unity of effort to achieve a political settlement is more coherent and clearer, and we welcome that. In that sense, last Thursday's conference was a signal event for the international community, because it represented a clear recognition on the part of all countries there of the need for all parts of the Afghan effort to be directed towards the durable political settlement that is needed.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is growing impatience in this country with such a long-standing war-as he stated, it has been going on for eight years-when there is no sight of any kind of military victory in the recognisable sense? Therefore, is it not right to put as much emphasis as possible on a political settlement, which must involve, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) indicated, all insurgents? We must speak to the enemy at some stage-the sooner the better.

David Miliband: With the caveat that it must be led by the Afghan Government, we are in complete agreement on the need for an Afghan political settlement that separates those with political grievances from those who are determined to pursue global jihad. The latter group is a small minority who are currently attacking their own communities, never mind our own forces, so the Government adhere very strongly indeed to the commitment to a political strategy and a settlement of the sort my hon. Friend advocates.

Philip Hollobone: Given that the Pakistani armed forces are configured for state-on-state conflict with India rather than counter-insurgency, what will be the strategy on the Pakistani side of the border with regard to the Taliban? Will it be the military strategy on which the Pakistanis have just embarked, or will they, too, change to a political tack?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think the Pakistani forces are being reconfigured to take care of what the Pakistani Government would call twin threats, but he is right to say that the sort of effort, training and structures that are needed for a counter-insurgency are quite different from those for traditional warfare. The evidence from Pakistan shows the folly of pursuing a political strategy on its own-a deal-making strategy will not work, and it has not worked in the federally administered tribal areas over the past two decades-but equally, a military strategy on its own will not work either. The absence of any sort of political process in the FATAs is as dangerous to their stability as the absence of any kind of security and order. The Pakistani experience shows the importance of combining military and civilian effort in the service of a durable political settlement. The fact that for, I think, the first time ever, that is happening on both sides of the Durand line in a complementary fashion, is a significant change in the past year.

David Cairns: Other than the very welcome additional debt relief that my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement, did any discussion take place during the conference about ways in which to enhance the alternative livelihoods programme in tackling the lethal narcotics trade? The alternative livelihoods programme is the only thing that has made any impact at all in halting the expansion of opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He will know that the fall of some 22 per cent. in poppy production across the whole of Afghanistan last year-33 per cent. in Helmand province-reflects two things: first, the increasing efforts on security; but, secondly and vitally, higher wheat prices and the wheat seed distribution programme, which has been such an important part of the effort to get Afghan farmers on to legal production and away from illegal production. That is the sort of twin-track approach that will be absolutely essential. I am pleased to say that there was very widespread support for that. Significantly, American efforts on the agricultural side are being scaled-up to unprecedented levels. The US Secretary of Agriculture was in Afghanistan two weeks ago to spearhead that effort.

Bob Spink: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Royal Anglian Regiment, which is serving in Afghanistan so valiantly?
	What confidence does the Foreign Secretary have that significant international focus is being placed on, and help and funding directed to, Pakistan and the border regions?

David Miliband: The honest answer is that I have more confidence than I had a year ago. The passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill-notwithstanding the controversy that that stirred up in Pakistan-represents a signal change in the American attitude towards its relationship with Pakistan, and a rebalancing away from military hardware towards comprehensive development. The exchange of letters between President Obama and President Zardari, which has now been publicised, needs to represent a further opening up of a dialogue between Pakistan and the US that leads to a completely different relationship between those two countries.

Standards and Privileges

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That this House-
	(1) approves the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 310);
	(2) endorses the recommendations in paragraph 22 of the Report; and
	(3) accordingly resolves to withhold Resettlement Grant from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead.
	This motion has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to facilitate the debate on the seventh report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner, Sir John Lyon; the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind); and the members of the Committee who worked on this report.
	It is a substantial report, and its recommendations are laid out on page 8. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made his apology to the House on Friday, and I ask the House to support the motion.

Malcolm Rifkind: I contribute to this debate as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Committee's report on the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) was published on 22 January. As the House has just heard, on Friday last the hon. Member made a personal statement in which he fully apologised to the House and accepted the recommendations of the Committee. I would like to echo what the Deputy Leader of the House said in congratulating the commissioner and those who helped him in the preparatory work needed for us to make our report to the House.
	The background to this case, briefly, is that over a five-year period the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead had claimed additional costs allowance for his designated second home in his constituency, having identified his main home as a house in Colchester. It is very relevant in understanding the background to this case, and was a matter of agreement between the hon. Member and the Committee, that the hon. Member's wife experienced a series of debilitating health-related incidents at frequent intervals from 2003, including a stroke in March 2004.
	The hon. Member and his wife felt that they had to spend more time at their constituency home from 2003 in order that he could care for his wife while continuing to carry out his parliamentary duties and to make it easier for Mrs. Cohen to receive necessary medical treatment at a specialist hospital in north London. Unfortunately, Mrs. Cohen continued to experience bad health from time to time and she and her husband therefore continued to live mostly in the constituency in London, letting the Colchester house for periods, but always hoping to return there.
	From early 2004 until August 2008, the hon. Member periodically let the Colchester house on six-month leases. That was not a secret arrangement. In 2001, he actually registered the fact that he owned and had received rental income from the Colchester property. He did not, however, subsequently declare any further income as he should have done. It was the hon. Member himself who drew this omission to the commissioner's attention and non-registration did not form part of the original complaint.
	The commissioner concluded that the hon. Member was in breach of the rules in relation to the registration of Members' financial interests in not registering his Colchester house and the fact that he received substantial rental income from it in each year from 2004 to 2008. The hon. Member has apologised for that breach and has now made an appropriate entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
	According to the best estimate that it has been possible to make in the absence of proper records, in 2002-03 the hon. Member spent 55 per cent. of nights in his designated main home in Colchester. The following year, he spent 45 per cent. of nights there. In 2005-06, the hon. Member did not stay in his designated main home at all. In other years, he spent well below half of nights there. For long periods, the hon. Member did not even have the option of using the house in Colchester because it was occupied by tenants.
	The commissioner concluded, and the Committee agreed, that the hon. Member was in breach of the rules of the House in identifying for allowance purposes his house in Colchester as one of his two homes from April 2004 to August 2008, because his use of the property was in fact constrained by regular and substantial periods when it was let to others. The Committee has concluded that the hon. Member's arrangements for his properties over the period of four and a half years represented a particularly serious breach of the rules.
	The hon. Member sent us written evidence in which he stated his views. His main points were as follows. He had always regarded the house in Colchester as his main home. His circumstances were not normal because of his wife's serious health problems, and it would be unfair to apply to his case the rule that a Member's main home will normally be where he spends most nights.
	During the four and a half years when the Colchester house was let for periods, the hon. Member said that there were also periods when it was not let, but used by him and his wife. He said that claiming the London supplement instead of the additional costs allowance would not have saved the taxpayer a penny, because he could also have claimed other expenses. He also claimed that it was not necessarily against the rules for a tenant for periods of time to occupy a house that was subject to claims for the additional costs allowance.
	Although the Committee had great sympathy with the hon. Member's difficulties arising out of his wife's health, we had no hesitation in concluding that his house in Colchester could not be regarded as his home for the purposes of claiming parliamentary allowances during the time in question. For most of that time he was not living there and the house was let, so for long periods it was not even accessible to him. In our view the hon. Member is also wrong to argue that letting a home for extended temporary periods is in accordance with the rules.
	It follows that the hon. Member's constituency home in Leyton and Wanstead was his main home-and for long periods his only home-throughout the four and a half years when he was making little use of the house in Colchester. We entirely accept that he and his wife were continually hoping to move back to Colchester, but as the commissioner has pointed out, it should have been clear to the hon. Gentleman that that was not going to happen in the short term. The fact that the house was let and re-let on a six-month lease suggests that he understood that. We calculate that during the period when his Colchester house was let between 2004 and 2008, the hon. Gentleman claimed and received more than £70,000 in total from his additional costs allowance. Over the same period, as a Member for an outer London constituency with only one home, he could instead have claimed about £9,000 in the London supplement. Taking the latter sum from the former, the Committee concluded that he had received more than £60,000 from parliamentary allowances over those four years to which he was not entitled.
	We have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member and Mrs. Cohen for the difficulties that they have faced in recent years. We believe that we understand their strong attachment to the house, to which they plan to retire. We certainly understand the pressures on the hon. Member, not only as a Member dealing with a heavy work load created by a busy constituency, but as one who has had to cope with considerable stress and demands on his time caused by the ill health of his partner. The House will wish to bear his personal situation very much in mind.
	In our second report of the current Session, we responded to the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the House should be prepared to withhold the resettlement grant from Members who commit serious breaches of the rules. We stated that we would regard a recommendation to withhold the resettlement grant as an option available to us in cases where it appeared to be the right sanction to apply in light of the breach that had occurred. We consider this to be just such a case. The hon. Member's breach was particularly serious and involved a large sum of public money. Withholding of the resettlement grant is a severe sanction that will effectively recover from him a similarly large sum of public money. We understand that the resettlement grant payable to a Member with his length of service is about £65,000, which is the maximum. He has announced that he will stand down at the next general election, so implementation of the sanction will not be unduly delayed.
	We recommended in our report that for committing a particularly serious breach of the rules on claiming parliamentary allowances the hon. Member be required to apologise by means of a personal statement on the Floor of the House. This he did last Friday. We further recommended that the full amount of the resettlement grant, which would be payable to him when he leaves the House, be withheld. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Shailesh Vara: As we have heard, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made a personal statement of apology to the House last Friday. In that statement he accepted the decision and ruling of the Standards and Privileges Committee "without proviso," as he put it. That is to be welcomed. We have also heard that the Standards and Privileges Committee report says that the Committee had sympathy for his personal circumstances in recent years and that this, too, should be borne in mind when the House responds to that report. Although he did not draw on that paragraph in his statement last week, I am sure that all Members will have taken note of the Committee's view and will sympathise with him for having to look after his wife, who is not well.
	No one can doubt the severity of the sanction in this case-the withholding of the resettlement grant-due to the amount of money involved. The withholding of a Member's resettlement grant in some cases was one of Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations. The Kelly proposals have yet to be implemented, but the fact that the sanction is already being used should send a clear message about how seriously the House takes all his proposals.
	I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, for carrying out a thorough investigation into this case. Thanks are also due to the Standards and Privileges Committee for all its work. I extend especial appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who has only recently stepped up to the plate as the Committee's Chairman.

David Heath: As a former member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I know just how difficult that job is, so I also extend my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and his Committee for their work on this case and others. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has very properly set out the circumstances of this case. As he said, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) has already made his apology to the House in accordance with the Committee's recommendation. We all hope that Mrs. Cohen will quickly be restored to full health, but I think that further comment from Members of the House is probably otiose, as is often the case in such circumstances. We have a clear recommendation before us, and unless there are strong reasons to disagree with the view of the Standards and Privileges Committee, it is proper for the House to agree to its recommendation. That is certainly what I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do.
	 Question put and agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND GOVERNANCE BILL (MONEY) (NO. 2)

Queen's recommendation signified.

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, it is expedient to authorise-
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by virtue of the Act to be paid out of money so provided into the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund;
	(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of-
	(a) amounts required by virtue of the Act to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of transfer values paid into the Consolidated Fund,
	(b) interest required by virtue of the Act to be paid on those amounts, and
	(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund by virtue of any other Act.
	Colleagues will recall that there was a money resolution for the original Parliamentary Standards Bill, as there is for any Bill that cannot be implemented without the expenditure of money. This further money resolution is required because, in implementing the proposals of the Committee chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, we are extending the powers and duties of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, not least to include responsibility for setting and administering the pensions of Members of Parliament and Ministers. For that reason and others, this further money resolution is required, and I commend it to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I am happy to support the motion.

David Heath: I concur.
	 Question put and agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND GOVERNANCE BILL (WAYS AND MEANS) (NO. 2)

Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges to tax as a result of a person's membership of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.- (Mr. Wills.)

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND GOVERNANCE BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the Order of 3 November 2009 in the last Session of Parliament (Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme) (No. 2)), as varied by the Orders of 19 and 26 January 2010, be further varied as follows:
	(1) in paragraph 2, for 'five days' there shall be substituted 'six days';
	(2) in the Table, for the entry relating to the fifth day of Committee there shall be substituted:
	
		
			 Table 
			  F ifth  day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 or the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 or to pensions for members of the House of Commons, Ministers or other office-holders, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the tax status of members of the House of Commons or members of the House of Lords. The moment of interruption on the fifth day. 
			  Sixth  day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Remaining new Clauses and remaining new Schedules, Clauses 59 to 62, remaining proceedings on the Bill. The moment of interruption on the sixth day. 
		
	
	 -( Mr. Straw. )
	 The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

[Relevant documents:  Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, Session 2007-08, HC 551-I and-II, and the Government response, Cm 7690. Tenth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2007-08, on Constitutional Renewal: Draft Bill and White Paper, HC 499, and the Government response, Cm 7688.  Fourth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2009-10, on Legislative Scrutiny: Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill:  Video Recordings Bill, HC 249.]

[5th Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Sylvia Heal  in the Chair]

New Clause 70
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Compliance Officer

'(1) For section 3(3) and (4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations) substitute-
	"(3) There is to be an officer known as the Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority ("the Compliance Officer").
	(4) Schedule 2 (which makes provision about the Compliance Officer) has effect."
	(2) For Schedule 2 to that Act substitute the Schedule set out in Schedule [Parliamentary Standards Act 2009: substituted Schedule 2].'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 71- Parliamentary standards: Membership of Speaker's Committee.
	Government new clause 72- Parliamentary standards: Transparency etc.
	Government new clause 73- Parliamentary standards: MPs' salaries.
	Government new clause 74- Parliamentary standards: MPs' allowances scheme.
	Government new clause 75- Parliamentary standards: Allowances claims.
	Government new clause 76- Parliamentary standards: MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests.
	Government new clause 77- Parliamentary standards: Investigations.
	Government new clause 78- Parliamentary standards: Enforcement.
	Government new clause 79- Parliamentary standards: Relationships with other bodies etc.
	Government new clause 80- Parliamentary standards: Further functions of the IPSA and Commissioner.
	Government new clause 81- Expiry of provisions of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
	Government new clause 82- Parliamentary standards: Consequential amendments.
	Government new clause 83- Resettlement grants for MEPs.
	Government new clause 84- Parliamentary standards: Parliamentary pensions.
	New clause 87- Duty to offer advice to Members on claims-
	'In section 6 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 after subsection (2) insert-
	"(2A) There shall be a duty on the Chief Executive Officer of IPSA and his staff to offer advice to Members on claims prior to formal submission and to promote best practice."'.
	Government new schedule 6- Parliamentary Standards Act 2009: substituted Schedule 2.
	Government new schedule 7- Parliamentary Standards Act 2009: new Schedule 4.
	Government new schedule 8- Parliamentary standards: consequential amendments.
	Government new schedule 9- Parliamentary and other pensions.
	Amendment (a) thereto, in paragraph 1(3), after 'Service', insert
	'and persons the IPSA considers to represent those likely to be affected by the scheme.'.
	Government amendment 133.

Jack Straw: There are a lot of new clauses and new schedules in this group, but on this occasion I have a better explanation for that than is often the case, and it is as follows. The Committee will recall-in technicolour-how important it was for us to reach agreement before the summer on what became the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, in order that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority established under that Act could be in place and operating from the beginning of the forthcoming financial year, which starts on 1 April. Meanwhile, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Sir Christopher Kelly, was meeting, and as I explained in my evidence to Sir Christopher and his colleagues, we accepted that the committee might well make some recommendations that would require amendments to be made to the 2009 Act. That has, indeed, happened. Members will also recall that the leaders of all three main parties-indeed, effectively, of all the parties represented in the House-said they wished Sir Christopher's report to be implemented in full. These new clauses and new schedules seek to do exactly that.
	Before I come on to discuss briefly the details of these many new measures, let me also say that the major part of the recommendations made by Sir Christopher Kelly will be implemented not so much by legislation, but by the powers and duties of IPSA. Sir Ian Kennedy and his IPSA members have already got a consultation under way on the form of allowances, and much else besides. I know that they are making themselves available for such consultation and that many Members have attended the open meetings that Sir Ian has held, but I urge Members who wish to make a response to do so by the close of the consultation on 11 February.
	The report contained 10 recommendations requiring further primary legislation, as they relate to the structure and functions of IPSA, which are governed by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I shall now go through the recommendations, discussing first those relating to the status and enforcement powers of the compliance officer and then dealing with those relating to the new arrangements for determining Members' pay and pensions. A great debate took place-the shadow Leader of the House will recall it, because he was a participant-both in this Chamber and literally below it, in the cross-party consultations that were held downstairs, about where the investigator of complaints against the schemes that were to be enforced by IPSA would be situated. The debate was about whether the investigator would be part of IPSA, whether his role would be separate from it but alongside it-detached from Parliament-or whether he would be within the House.
	I shall not go back over the rather tortuous debate that took place, but I can tell hon. Members that we ended up with a Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations who, in a way, straddled both the House and IPSA. The 2009 Act also made provision for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards-currently Sir John Lyon-to be double-hatted, if the House wished, with the commissioner appointed under the original Act. Sir Christopher and his colleagues said that they wanted there to be a separation; they proposed that decisions on the financial code of conduct should be returned to the Commons so that that would become entirely a Commons matter, while compliance in respect of the system that they proposed should be operated by IPSA which would be separate and removed from the House.
	That is what we are proposing. There will be a compliance officer, but we then need to consider who appoints the compliance officer. One of the reasons for the length of the provisions before us is that, as the Committee will readily recognise, it is often one thing to describe in prose what one wants to do-as Sir Christopher and his colleagues did-but it is an often more complicated matter to set it out in legislation that can be enduring and clear. For that reason, some of the new clauses and new schedules are extensive.

Peter Bottomley: The Justice Secretary has explained that the compliance officer will work with IPSA. Those of us who are not up-to-date with all this would understand from what he said that we will also have a parliamentary commissioner who will deal with non-pay, non-money and non-allowance matters. If that is so, what are the limits to what the parliamentary commissioner might take a look at?

Jack Straw: The role of the parliamentary commissioner is to enforce the various codes-Standing Orders-that the House has established to deal with, for example, declarations of interest. That is the most obvious example, but included in that would also be examples of advocacy in the House-cases where somebody has been taking money from a particular organisation or individual to advocate a cause and has then failed to disclose that-and many other matters. The enforcement of the rules about allowances, for example in respect of office costs, travel and accommodation, is plainly a matter for IPSA and therefore would fall to the compliance officer.
	We have separated the two roles, as set out in the group of amendments. The Committee will note that new clause 70 provides for the appointment of a compliance officer and that one of new schedules sets out in more detail how that officer would be appointed and how he or she could be removed.

George Young: Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), will the terms of reference of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards then be constrained, so that it will not be possible to refer the matters to which my hon. Friend referred to them?

Jack Straw: It is subject to any advice that we get from those at the Table, but the responsibilities of the John Lyon figure and the Standards and Privileges Committee are entirely a matter for the House, full stop. These changes do not deal with that. What is in the tin will be on the tin. This is about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and its responsibilities to establish and administer schemes for the payment of pay, pensions and allowances and to ensure that there is proper compliance with those schemes not only from Members of this House but from the chief executive officer and staff of the authority. So, there is a separation.
	Somebody has to appoint the compliance officer. It was implicit and partially explicit that since the compliance officer had to be separate from the House, the appointment of the compliance officer could not be made by it. The question was then, "Who else could appoint the compliance officer?"

David Heath: rose-

Jack Straw: I will give way in one second.
	Various suggestions were made informally, including that we could perhaps ask the Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint the compliance officer. I should say, given that I am responsible at arm's length for the Judicial Appointments Commission and have a role in the appointment of members of the judiciary, too, that we did consider that option seriously but decided that it was not appropriate to give the JAC an one-off responsibility for a position that, although it has to follow principles of natural justice, is, at best, quasi-judicial rather than judicial.
	The solution on which we landed was that the IPSA board would appoint the compliance officer. There is nothing unusual about that, and Sir Christopher Kelly explicitly drew a parallel between the compliance officers of the Department for Work and Pensions who deal with benefits and those of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs who deal with tax. Those departmental compliance officers are certainly not subject to any sort of elaborate arm's length appointment procedure, as in this case, but, as we all know when we take up complaints about benefits, they can still operate at arm's length from those who are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the benefits system.
	We also pointed out to Sir Christopher-it was, frankly, merely an omission from his scheme-that, these days, if there is an appeal against a decision by a compliance officer in DWP or HMRC, it goes to a first-tier tribunal. Appeals on tax used to go to the commissioners, but they now go to a first-tier tribunal. They can then proceed up to the appeals tribunal and, if there is a serious point of law, to the senior courts. We are proposing exactly that arrangement for decisions reached by the compliance officer in terms of parliamentary standards. I think that must be right.
	The schedule sets out how the compliance officer will be appointed and the powers to remove him or her from office are very tightly constrained. Once appointed, the compliance officer will be an independent office holder who will not be accountable to IPSA for the decisions that he or she might take. Kelly, whose recommendations we are seeking faithfully to implement, did not want an arrangement by which the compliance officer was appointed by some other third party. I commend to the Committee where we have landed on that point.
	In new clause 87 tabled by the right hon. Member for Hampshire North-East, one issue-

George Young: North-West. It was a 50:50 chance.

Jack Straw: I did not do badly. The right hon. Gentleman used to represent Ealing; that is the problem.

George Young: Ealing, Acton.

Jack Straw: I am not quite as old as the right hon. Gentleman, but I am getting on that way.
	The terms of new clause 87 are linked to concerns about how even-handed the compliance officer and the appeal system will be. Many colleagues have raised questions informally with me, as I am sure they have with other Members of the House, about what will happen if a Member runs into difficulty not because of any malfeasance or failure on their part but because of maladministration by IPSA, its chief executive or staff. The answer is that the compliance officer will be able to investigate complaints not only against individual Members, but against the authority and its offices.

Mark Field: I am still slightly unclear about something, perhaps because I have not picked up some of the nuances of earlier interventions. Will there still be an overlap between what the compliance officer does and the work of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Or is it envisaged that issues that are directly within IPSA's ambit will be matters entirely for the compliance officer, and that the Committee will therefore deal only with other issues? A failure to create such a separation will lead to overlap and ever more confusion, which will not be very helpful and will be very expensive for the taxpayer.

Jack Straw: Day by day, those responsibilities will not overlap, but there must be the overlap that I am describing. I think that the Committee accepts that. Without that overlap, the system could be subject to outrageous abuse. That is unlikely, given what the House and Members, whether they have transgressed or not, have been through in the past year, but one can ever be surprised. If there were such an abuse-a serious fraud, which might involve police prosecution-the case would go to the compliance officer and a civil sanction might be imposed, as might a requirement to repay money. However, if the abuse were particularly outrageous, the compliance officer might decide to refer the case to the Standards and Privileges Committee, with a view to the relevant person being expelled or suspended from the House. There is no rule here, any more than there is a rule in real life, that says that if one transgresses criminal law or a statutory code, the only consequences that will follow will be those related directly to the transgression of that law or code. If one transgresses criminal law and the case is serious enough, one might go to prison, but one might also lose one's job. Police officers who transgress the criminal law and the disciplinary code may lose not only their liberty and their job, but, in extreme circumstances, their pension as well. When I was the Home Secretary, I had to take decisions on such matters. The measures I am outlining will run parallel to such systems. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. We do not propose that there should be second-guessing, or two parallel systems of enforcement.

Peter Bottomley: No one would claim that these are easy things. It seems clear from what the Secretary of State has just said that nothing in today's proceedings on the Bill will alter the parliamentary commissioner's responsibilities in any way. If some of the things that the parliamentary commissioner is now responsible for will fall to the compliance officer, there is clearly an opportunity for overlap or double dealing. I suspect that we can expect the compliance officer and the parliamentary commissioner to ensure that that does not happen; they will reach an agreement.
	Another issue that the Secretary of State has just raised relates to crime. A provision in new clause 79, which appears on page 662 of the amendment paper and is entitled "Relationships with other bodies", states:
	"The powers conferred by sections 9 to 9B (and Schedule 4) may be exercised...even if...the member is or has been the subject of criminal proceedings in relation to that conduct...whether or not convicted."
	I hope that he will explain at some stage how the two things can go along together. I do not object to that, but it should be done explicitly.

Jack Straw: Colleagues will know-it is a well-trodden path-that if someone was convicted of a serious offence, they would normally come within the automatic disqualification. Let us say that the penalty imposed by the criminal courts was less than the 12 months in prison that would require automatic disqualification. Let us say that someone was acquitted in a criminal court but the facts had been admitted and the acquittal rested on a technical matter, or that the facts had been admitted but the extent of the mens rea-the individual's guilt-was challenged and the jury decided on balance to acquit them. The jurors are saying that the person is not guilty, according to the criminal standard of proof; they are not saying that the person is innocent.

Richard Shepherd: They are not saying that the person is guilty either.

Jack Straw: No, they are saying that the person is not guilty, according to the criminal law. As happens very often in employment law, an acquittal will not exempt the individual from appropriate proceedings under employment legislation and the contract of their employment, because the standard of proof is lower, as everyone who has ever employed anyone knows. However, I do not anticipate that this will be a huge problem in practice.
	Under new clause 75, an MP who is dissatisfied with IPSA's decision to refuse a claim can ask the compliance officer to conduct a review, having first given IPSA reasonable opportunity to conduct its own review. There could be an appeal against that decision as well. So the Member could go all the way and appeal against a refusal by the authority. I hope that, in practice, such appeals will be few and far between.
	Under new clause 87, which appears on page 665 of the amendment paper, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire wishes to add a new subjection to section 6 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 that states:
	"There shall be a duty on the Chief Executive Officer of IPSA and his staff to offer advice to Members on claims prior to formal submission and to promote best practice."
	Aside from the inevitable drafting problems, which can always be resolved, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push that new clause to a vote, given the undertakings that I am providing. I understand exactly what he wants to achieve.
	Ultimately, this is a matter for the House, but we are concerned to ensure that, if possible, the members of IPSA embrace what we are attempting to achieve and that it is practical in terms of their administration. They will certainly offer guidance in any event. I can think of cases from my own experience-they are nothing whatever to do with questionable expenses, but with straightforward matters that relate to the running of my office-where I have phoned someone in the Department and said, "Is this in line with the rules? I can't find it anywhere in particular," and they have said, "Yes," and then paid it, or they have paid it for a number of years and then said, "We don't think that it should be paid anymore," at which point I say, "I'm now in a slight difficulty. Do you think that you could think again, and by the way, here is the paper trail?" There is no fiddle; we must know where we are. Contrary to what is often thought outside, we do not have our own compliance officers. Assiduous Members of Parliament are busy, and we are trying to run what amount to small businesses, while abiding by what will be increasingly complicated, as well as very public, rules.

Mark Field: I recognise that, as the Secretary of State rightly says, all of us are busy, though I am sure that we will all have learned the lesson that all the forms and applications for expenses and allowances must be completed by us, and that we should not rely on office staff to do that. We all know that there have been some terrible abuses, but where an open and transparent claim has been signed off, the biggest concern and the aspect that has aroused the anger of many Members of Parliament on the grounds of natural justice has been the attempt at retrospection-a very successful attempt under Sir Thomas Legg-going back some years.
	I have always said that the rules were far too lax and that, in many ways, Members cannot complain. None the less, the issue that arises, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has tried to address, is the need for some sort of clearance process. That would apply if we had a compliance officer. If an open and transparent claim is made and accepted, surely it is wrong that many years later a Member should be expected to repay or more importantly, even if repayment is made, should be seen to have committed wrongdoing, where in fact there has been openness, transparency and the opportunity for clearance. Does the Secretary of State not see that there would be great benefits from putting in place some sort of clearance process that would avoid such problems in the future?

Jack Straw: I accept entirely the burden of what the hon. Gentleman says. The issue is how to achieve that. Let us suppose that in such a case, the authority says, "We shouldn't have agreed this amount for training or for cleaning," and the Member says, "Sorry, but you did, and I did this in good faith"-there was no trickery, and on the face of it, the claim was entirely consistent with the rules. One of the things that we need to consider between now and Report is how to ensure that there is a clear power available to the compliance officer, to the first tier tribunal and so on, to say, "There has been a technical transgression here. We accept now that the authority is right to say that there was an error, but this was nothing whatever to do with the Member, so we are not requiring any repayment."
	IPSA is clear, as are we all, that the rules must be much more categorical. Let us take as an example the issue that has not affected me, but has affected a number of Members, who are understandably sore about it-levels of cleaning costs, which were set retrospectively by Sir Thomas Legg at £2,000. My understanding is that some right hon. and hon. Members claimed considerably in excess of that. I am trying to remember whether cleaning costs are provided for. To the extent that an item is provided for, the parliamentary authority and the House have been much more specific.
	The first way of avoiding the need for detailed advice is to be clear about what can be paid and what cannot be paid. That said, there will always be areas where discretion has to be exercised, just as the Revenue, day by day, has to exercise discretion, as do tax accountants, about what is wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in pursuit of the individual's employment, which is the mantra for schedule E. Since that definition is taken straight from tax law, and is the fundamental test, aside from the specifics of the regulations as to whether an expenditure is acceptable, there is bound to be some scope for debate. I accept that some measure of guidance, good practice and consistency, which we did not get from the Fees Office all the time, will be very helpful.
	The other side of this is that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority does not want to be in a position where somebody phones up and, in good faith, a member of staff says, "We think you should do such and such." The member of staff may not be a senior member and is just giving informal advice, but that is regarded as holy writ. Nobody is suggesting that that should happen. I promise that between now and Report we will discuss the matter actively with colleagues here to try and reach wording that is acceptable to Members of the House and as far as possible to Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues on the authority.
	New clauses 73 and 84 and new schedule 9 relate to Members' pay and pensions. The Committee will recall that on 3 July 2008 we took the long-overdue decision to end the practice, which was unseemly to say the least, of determining our own pay and voting for our own pay increases. We passed a resolution saying that responsibility for determining pay should go to the Senior Salaries Review Body, and we established a formula for that. The Kelly Committee argued that one body should be responsible for considering in the round, and determining the full remuneration package for, Members' pay, pensions and expenses. We now propose that all that, in respect of pay and pensions structure, be shifted from the SSRB and the House to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Peter Bottomley: This may be helpful to the Minister. New clause 73(2) and (3) deal with MPs' salaries. It is probably better if I do not read out both, but proposed new subsection (2) states:
	"The first determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 does not have to come into effect before 1 April 2012."
	Presumably, proposed new subsection (3) states how matters will be determined until then, but I am not sure that the meaning is obvious to everyone listening to our debates or, even, to everybody in the Chamber.

Jack Straw: I have been through those provisions in some detail. Indeed, I did so when they were draft provisions, and I suggested to parliamentary counsel that the wording be made clearer. It is now clearer than it was, although the hon. Gentleman does not have the benefit of having seen the earlier drafts. IPSA does not believe that it has the capacity to set up- [ Interruption. ] Yes, I thought that that was the case, but I am very grateful to the Whip, as ever, for giving me instructions. IPSA, for very good reason, does not believe that it has the capacity to undertake and implement a major review of parliamentary salaries before 1 April 2012, and I am very grateful to the Whips, as ever, for keeping me in order. In the interim, the existing arrangements, which are based on the July 2008 decision of the House, will apply. They will apply until the provisions before us come into force.
	The hon. Gentleman will note that subsection-

Peter Bottomley: Six?

Jack Straw: There is some very odd numbering in new clause 73, and that is something that I had not noticed before. It goes (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), and then (2) and (3), but anyway, new clause 73(2), on page 657 of the amendment paper, indicates that the key provisions in the new clause would not come into force until 1 April 2012.
	New schedule 9 would provide for IPSA to make pension schemes for MPs, and for the Minister for the Civil Service to make pension schemes for Ministers and certain other officeholders, such as the Leader of the Opposition. That contrasts with the current arrangements, whereby the Leader of the House determines pension arrangements through regulations.

George Young: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what discussions took place with the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund and others before these amendments were tabled?

Jack Straw: I cannot say precisely what discussions took place with the trustees. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman about conversations that I have had, particularly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), on behalf of the chairman of the trustees, who is currently indisposed through illness. I hope to give the Committee some comfort about two key issues that the trustees have raised with me.
	The first issue relates to accrued rights-that is, the rights to a pension that Members have already accrued. These provisions are silent on whether IPSA could change accrued rights peremptorily, and there is some anxiety about that. That is no part of our intention, nor that of IPSA. The Committee will be aware that section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 sets out the requirements that have to be followed if there are proposals to change accrued rights. If a so-called protective modification is to be made, the informed consent of the Members affected is required. Since what we are seeking to do through the whole IPSA arrangements is to put Members of Parliament in no better and no worse a position than members of the public in ordinary employment, we accept that there should be a similar protection for accrued rights. Discussions have taken place about how that might be done. Officials are considering whether, for example, provisions for Members' pensions should hook in with the provision in the 1995 Act, which might be the most sensible way of doing it.
	The second issue, which relates to trustees, has been raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). I have been to Ellesmere Port many times- [ Interruption. ] No, it was not briefly at all. There is a huge petrol refinery there, and when we almost ran out of petrol in September 2000, and I was Home Secretary and therefore to blame, I made it my business to visit all the refineries in the country to try to avoid a similar crisis happening again. That is why I know my hon. Friend's constituency intimately.
	The provisions as drafted give IPSA the right to appoint whomsoever it wishes as trustees. There is provision in the Pensions Act 2004 that at least one third of trustees of any pension scheme should be representative of the members of the scheme. We propose to look at that to see whether such a provision could be brought in as an amendment on Report.

Andrew Miller: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said about the 1995 scheme in relation to accrued rights; that would be a sensible mechanism to develop. On his second point, under these provisions IPSA appears to have the power to remove a trustee from the fund. Under the 2004 Act, there are circumstances in which the trust body collectively can effectively dismiss a trustee. Can we be sure that my right hon. Friend does not intend to go any further than the requirements of the 2004 Act?

Jack Straw: It is not our intention to do that. I cannot be absolutely certain that the wording does not take it further-that is why we are actively examining the matter. We will consult very quickly and come back with modifications, which I hope will accommodate the Committee's wishes.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) did not read out paragraph (1)(3) of new schedule 9, which states:
	"The IPSA may, after consulting the Minister for the Civil Service... remove a trustee of the fund".
	It then refers to paragraph (3), of which sub-paragraph (4) states:
	"No provision of a scheme under this paragraph is to be construed as restricting the powers of the trustees under paragraph 2(1)."
	Now is not the time to become discursive about what that may or may not mean, but I know of no pension scheme, outside the civil service, where the Minister for the civil service can be the only person who comments on a proposal to dismiss one or all trustees. I am therefore grateful to the Justice Secretary for saying that he will think more about the matter.

Jack Straw: Point taken.
	One of the amendments would remove the sunset clause, which I never wanted in the first place, so I am delighted to recommend it. I do not think that that will require further amendment.

George Young: The Committee is grateful to the Secretary of State for his lucid explanation of a rather complicated series of amendments, which seek to implement the Kelly recommendations.
	Two months ago, there was some confusion in the Government as it was not clear that we would get the changes before a general election. Immediately after the report was published, all the party leaders said that it should be implemented in full. Although most of it was about the arrangements for IPSA, which are its responsibility and not ours, important proposals were designed to strengthen it, which the Committee on Standards in Public Life identified as requiring primary legislation. However, that was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech and, when cross-examined on the matter, the Prime Minister looked somewhat baffled. Then there was confusion, with half the Government claiming that no new legislation was necessary and the other half promising to do everything that was necessary.
	The Leader of the House appeared to take both positions at once. At business questions on 19 November, she conceded that some of the proposals would require legislation. She then said that they could be introduced "next Session", but subsequently seemed to backtrack by suggesting that no legislative changes were necessary
	"because the power in question already exists under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009."-[ Official Report, 19 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 136.]
	We are therefore grateful for the smack of firm government from the Secretary of State, who has decided that we need to make progress this afternoon and in this Session.
	As we have said throughout, it must be right for us to do everything in our power to ensure that the next Parliament can start with a clean sheet. While the Government still have a monopoly on the House's time, it is up to them to ensure that we get through all the reforms that are needed to allow the next generation of Members of Parliament to do their jobs, without being associated with the bad practice that has left the current Parliament so badly discredited.
	The amendments deal with the concerns that Kelly raises in his report about the remit and structure of IPSA. As he says, the new regulator "bears the scars" of the haste with which the Parliamentary Standards Bill was expedited through Parliament last summer. Many voices in both Houses urged caution at the time. Although we agreed with the Government on the need to demonstrate our commitment to urgent reform, it was inevitable-as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said at the time-that we would need to revisit the Bill at a future date.
	Given that Parliament spent a great deal of time last July trying to sort out some of the constitutionally challenging aspects of the Bill-particularly those to do with privilege-it is right that we return now to look more closely at the role and responsibilities of IPSA.
	Much of what is before us has our unconditional support. We agree that the sanctions regime should be toughened, as it is in new clause 74, which would give IPSA the power-which the House exercised a few moments ago-to dock money from the resettlement grant for serious breaches of the allowances regime.
	We wholeheartedly endorse the move to give IPSA responsibility for determining and administering our pay and pensions, for which we have consistently called, to ensure that MPs no longer have a hand in our own remuneration. We should note that, despite a newspaper article last week, asserting that colleagues could be awarded a back-dated pay increase by IPSA, that is not possible under new clause 73, which states in proposed new section 4A(5) to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 that a salary determination
	"other than the first determination"
	may have retrospective effect. I doubt whether Sir Ian Kennedy would oblige in any case, and I shall return to pensions in a moment.
	We accept new clause 76, which will return to the House responsibility for maintaining the Register of Members' Financial Interests and the code of conduct. As we warned at the time, giving IPSA responsibility for those matters could result in privilege disputes, which would be an unwelcome distraction from IPSA's main tasks.
	We support new clause 71, which appoints lay members to the Speaker's Committee for IPSA, which is an example of good practice. Their input to the Committee's deliberations will be helpful to broaden the base of experience and viewpoint.
	We also welcome new clause 72, which gives additional statutory duties to IPSA to carry out its functions and to support Members in their parliamentary roles in an
	"efficient, cost-effective and transparent"
	manner.
	A number of colleagues raised legitimate concerns about IPSA's running costs during the debates last summer. Sir Ian Kennedy's consultation document gives us an idea of how IPSA will operate, including on pre-scrutiny and permission giving, scrutiny of claims, appeals, post-claim audits, regular audits of staff working practices and office set-ups, and administration of a loan scheme for MPs, to which we will today add responsibility for paying and setting MPs' salaries, and administration of pensions. IPSA will also run a very substantial property empire if the proposals for renting accommodation for MPs go ahead.
	In short, the processes being developed in IPSA are extremely wide ranging and likely to require a large staff to implement. We need to ensure a proper balance between the necessary checks and scrutiny of claims and value for money for the taxpayer. The Government have so far not provided costings for the likely extra administrative impacts that the proposals will have on IPSA. A money resolution was made earlier, but no figures were attached to it. Will the Secretary of State give an estimate of the additional costs of the proposals before the Committee?
	We have no concerns about new clause 81, which repeals the sunset provisions originally included in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. They were originally included because of the extraordinary haste with which we dealt with that measure, but the opportunity to return to the matter now, afforded to us by Kelly, allows us to put those concerns to rest.
	I welcome those measures, but I shall now turn to the Government proposals that merit further attention, and it would be useful if the Secretary of State responded to some of the points I am about to make. New clause 70 and new schedule 6 introduce the most radical departure from the 2009 Act by scrapping the external Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations and replacing him with an internal compliance officer. That relates to recommendation 44 in the Kelly report.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life was concerned about the confusion that would be caused by having a Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigations examining financial wrongdoings, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking at cases in which Members have, for example, breached the code of conduct, unless that breach related wholly to expenses or the rules on financial interests. Of course, the Committee has a point. However, does new clause 79 create an equal source of duplication? That was mentioned in earlier exchanges. Proposed new section 10A(3) of the 2009 Act states:
	"Nothing in section 9 to 9B (or Schedule 4) affects the disciplinary powers of the House of Commons."
	I think I understand what the Government are aiming at, but the proposal means that Members who breach the rules can be submitted to the disciplinary processes of the House, including possible suspension, and then be liable to be turned over by IPSA for the same offence. That strikes me as double jeopardy, and I wonder whether the Government think that desirable.
	On top of that, we have IPSA's compliance and enforcement regime, which, as envisaged by the proposals, raises some rather profound issues. Under schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the commissioner for investigations was to be appointed by Her Majesty, with the terms and conditions to be determined by Mr. Speaker. However, under new schedule 6, the compliance officer, as the Secretary of State said, will be appointed by IPSA, with terms and conditions to be determined by IPSA. Indeed, proposed new schedule 2(9) to the 2009 Act will allow IPSA staff to double-job with the role of the compliance officer for up to six months if there is a vacancy.
	Before, we had a proper firewall between the investigator and the day-to-day administration of IPSA, but that has now gone. This is important because, in my experience of cases in which Members have been accused of a financial misdemeanour, sometimes the source of the error can be traced to misdirected advice from the Fees Office, as the Secretary of State mentioned. Two recent Standards and Privileges reports underline this. In one, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards notes that the Department of Resources was forced to conclude that "in retrospect" advice given to one Member was "flawed" and that the Member
	"cannot be blamed for taking the advice he was given"
	In another, the Committee is more scathing, concluding that
	"the House authorities' failure to act on the deadline they had themselves set for"
	the Member
	"to bring his second home arrangements within the revised rules was equally serious and that it allowed a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue for far too long. This failure does not absolve"
	the Member
	"of his responsibilities, but it is something that causes us great concern".
	The Government may be proceeding on the basis that IPSA will so efficiently administer the new regime that such misunderstandings will not recur. I think that that would be a heroic assumption. In the provisions on "Investigations", in new clause 77 (9)(6), we see that, in the event of an investigation, the compliance officer will be asked to prepare a statement of his original findings which may include
	"findings about the role of the IPSA in the matters under investigation".
	As drafted, the compliance officer will therefore be asked to pass judgment on either the rules or people within the organisation by which he is employed. Moreover, subsection (9A)(1) states:
	"IPSA must determine procedures to be followed by the Compliance Officer in relation to investigations".
	However, that would begin to compromise the independence of the current system. At present, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards follows his own rules, rather than those provided by the House, but under the Bill we would have a compliance officer appointed, employed and thus constrained by IPSA. That is exactly what the Commissioner for Standards warned against in evidence to Kelly.
	The Committee dismissed the concerns by citing the satisfactory working of "similar compliance roles" in HMRC. That is not the best comparison. In HMRC, the adjudicator works as a referee holding HMRC to account on behalf of its customers-the taxpayers. That is the normal role of a compliance officer in the financial services industry. But this is not what we are asking of this compliance officer, who would be holding the customers to account on behalf of the regulator, even in situations where the regulator itself had erred.
	This debate is taking place against the backdrop of Legg and Kennedy and the appeals, some of which have already leaked into the public domain. As has been demonstrated by the press reports, the interpretation of the rules is a complex task. In some cases, the Fees Office, Members, Legg and Kennedy have all reached different conclusions about the same case. However hard IPSA tries to remove any ambiguity from the new regime, the rules will never be codified and there will always be grey areas. That is why we all thought back in July that it was so important to have an external investigator who has the independence to come to a final, considered judgment.
	I wish to make one further point about the compliance officer. Although the original Act stipulated a role for a Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigations, the position was not advertised or appointed at the same time as Sir Ian Kennedy or the other members of IPSA. It may be that the Government were envisaging that John Lyon would take over both roles in the future. Whatever the reason, the idea of a Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations was quietly dropped after Kelly. As things stand now, IPSA will not be able to appoint the new compliance officer until after Royal Assent has been given to this Bill. Given that IPSA aims to be fully operational by the beginning of the next Parliament, do the Government think that they will be able to fill the compliance officer post in time? If not, what will be the procedure for complaints?
	We also left hanging in the air the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) about dual mandates. Unless something happens to the rules within the House, it will still be possible for a constituent to make a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as a complaint is being considered by the alternative route. Those consequential issues need to be addressed.
	In fairness to the Secretary of State, he has tried to address some of the issues that I have just been talking about by tabling new clause 75, which gives MPs the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal. That is a welcome step, but the first time the tribunal finds against the compliance officer, as it could under new schedule 7, there is a risk that the whole compliance system could be compromised.
	I want briefly to return to new clause 77, on investigations, and note that proposed new sections 9A(2)(b) and 9A(3) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 give Members under investigation an opportunity to call and examine witnesses. That was not contained in the Kelly report and it is not current practice. It would be helpful if the Government could explain the rationale for what is a fairly radical change in the process and say why it is a good idea.
	There are two concerns about new schedule 7. First, what is the source of paragraphs 1(4)(a) and (b) of proposed new schedule 4 to the 2009 Act? In the event of an overpayment, they allow IPSA not only to charge interest but to ask Members to bear the costs
	"incurred by the IPSA in relation to the overpayment, including the costs of the Compliance Officer".
	That is an entirely new provision-there is no mention of it in Kelly-and what it allows for is not current practice. Any charge incurred could be extremely significant. I have known some cases, from when I was the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, that ran into many thousands of pounds. For example, the inquiry into the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) involved considerable expense and a large amount of fees for translation. We also note that the adjudicator's services are entirely free of charge, whatever the verdict. What is the Government's reasoning for including paragraphs 1(4)(a) and (b), which were not part of Kelly?
	The whole procedure is just beginning to look rather bureaucratic. IPSA has to "prepare guidance" on the disciplinary regime, under paragraph 2(1) of proposed new schedule 4 to the 2009 Act, as well as having to consult the Speaker, the Leader of the House and other people, all within a short space of time. I contrast the relative speed of the current disciplinary process, whereby a case can be resolved within a matter of weeks, with the rather cumbersome, top-heavy and, I fear, slow-moving new regime that we are about to introduce.
	Let me briefly mention new clause 87, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), about which the Secretary of State spoke movingly.  [ Interruption . ] He spoke movingly, but he was unable to accept it. New clause 87 would give IPSA a duty to offer advice to Members on claims and seeks to implement a recommendation in the Kelly report-recommendation 44, I think-that IPSA should be able to give advice to Members and "promote good practice". It would be a waste of time and resources if Members were left having to interpret the rules as they saw fit, only to have claims continually rejected. The current IPSA consultation document is silent on giving advice. However, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that he would have another look at that before Report.
	A considerable influx of new Members is expected in the next Parliament who will be required to get to grips very quickly indeed with a new system. For that reason, if for no other, IPSA needs to have the capacity and ability to give them guidance. There are already stories of some candidates pledging to avoid claiming expenses altogether, owing to the confusion of events over the past year. MPs should not feel discouraged from legitimately claiming for expenditure incurred in the course of their duties. That point is underlined in the IPSA consultation.
	Kelly has suggested that advice to Members should be channelled through the compliance officer, but that would be illogical. The title "compliance officer" implies that he will audit, review and determine outcomes, not offer advice. If a compliance officer gave advice about a claim that was later investigated, he would have compromised his role in any inquiry. We do not want to return to the culture of secrecy and collusion that may have existed in the past, but there is a recommendation in the Kelly report about giving advice, and we feel that it should be acted on.
	Let me turn to new clause 84 and new schedule 9, and return to pensions. Kelly is quite clear that salary and pensions should be taken out of the hands of Parliament, and we agree. However, although he is clear-cut on the need for a total separation between IPSA and Parliament on pay, there is much more ambiguity in how he envisages IPSA handling pensions. As he says:
	"the independent regulator may decide, as a matter of practicality, to contract out the day to day running of the parliamentary pensions scheme to the existing professional administrators."
	However, real concerns are being expressed by trustees of the fund about the Government's amendments, as drafted. We discovered that the Government had not been able to carry out any consultation before the amendments were tabled, and I am glad that that will now urgently take place.
	In moving to the new scheme, as outlined in new schedule 9(3), will Members have the same safeguards in relation to the benefits that they have accrued over time as would employees of a company that is part of a takeover bid? I think that the Secretary of State gave such a guarantee in his remarks, but it would be nice to see it enshrined in the legislation.
	We raise a further issue in our probing amendment (a). The new schedule as it stands seems to imply that no MP or ex-MP will even be consulted in the strategic oversight of the pension scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West said that he knew of no parallel in the private sector where such provision exists. Although the measure does not say so explicitly, it does not specify who the trustees should be. It seems odd that, once the fund is transferred into IPSA's competence, the appointment of the trustees is to be left entirely up to IPSA, which will need to consult only the Prime Minister. One wonders what the Prime Minister's interest in this matter is, as opposed to everyone else's.

Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the practice that applies to pension funds outside this place should equally apply to us, and that Members should have the right to appoint a proportion of the trustees, just as members of any large scheme elsewhere have?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a forceful point. I can see no reason why there should be a disparity between this scheme and the schemes that he has just mentioned.
	There is also a degree of confusion-which the Secretary of State might be able to resolve-about exactly when pensions will move into IPSA's competence. In the written ministerial statement from the Leader of the House on 10 December, the Government said that they would bring forward legislation
	"to give IPSA the power to set, as well as to administer, the MPs' pay system, after consulting the Senior Salaries Review Body. The powers for both pay and pensions would therefore take effect in 2011-12".-[ Official Report, 10 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 35WS.]
	I understand the need for IPSA to consult the SSRB before making its first determination on pay, as set out in proposed new section 4A(7), but does it follow that pensions would therefore take effect in the same year? And where in the Government's amendments do they set out when IPSA should start determining the structure of MPs' pensions? As drafted, new schedule 9 seems to take effect immediately after Royal Assent is granted, rather than in 2011-12.
	Before I finish, I wish to make one final point on the general scope of this debate. Today, we are focusing on building in improvements to the disciplinary regime by, among other things, strengthening the Members' code of conduct. But, despite the behaviour of members of the Government being of just as much public interest as that of Members of this House, we are going to make no change whatever to the second code of conduct-that relating to Ministers.
	The policing of Ministers lags far behind the policing of the House in terms of transparency, independence and reprisals. At present, the ministerial code is overseen by the Prime Minister, who can decide whether to refer a matter to his independent adviser and whether to publish any report. Neither procedure has ever been invoked, even though there have been several opportunities to do so. In the past, the adoption of tougher measures in the code of conduct for Members has led to pressure being applied to representatives in other institutions-for instance, Members of the European Parliament and peers. I hope that today's debate will allow us to return soon to the issue of the ministerial code of conduct, so that greater accountability can be introduced into the system.

Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some clarification on that point? The Government appear not to intend to make the kind of changes to the ministerial code that I would welcome. Will he make a commitment on behalf of the Conservative party that, if it were to form a Government in the near future, it would make such changes?

George Young: Any new code of conduct would be the property of an incoming Prime Minister, who would devise his own code of conduct and guidance. I think I am right in saying that a previous Conservative Prime Minister was the first to publish the code of guidance for Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman wants a categorical assurance, however, he will have to wait until a later occasion.
	We welcome the Government's decision finally to bring forward these amendments for debate, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to the substantive issues that I have raised. We all want to see a new system up and running by the time of the next Parliament, but, in achieving that objective, we should be able to ask legitimate questions about how the new regime will be run, how it will work and how much it will cost. These are the questions that will be in the minds of our constituents, and it is right that we should have answers to give them.

David Heath: I shall start at the point with which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) ended. I shared his frustration and sense of disbelief when Ministers told us, following the publication of the Kelly report, that no statutory changes would be required as a consequence. The fact that we now have before us in the Government's name 15 new clauses, four new schedules and an amendment in order to implement Kelly shows that we were absolutely right to express such impatience. At last, we have the opportunity to put these measures on to the statute book. The Liberal Democrats have taken the view, as have others, that it was important to implement the Kelly recommendations in full and as promptly as possible. That is what this process is about.

Robert Smith: Is not a consequence of the Government's dithering over the need to introduce statutory provisions the fact that the new clauses and schedules have arrived very late in the day for us to scrutinise, to ensure that they are as effective as possible?

David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They arrived very late in the day, as did this Committee sitting. Last week, we did not even know that it was going to happen, despite the fact that we had repeatedly pointed out that the number of Committee days available were insufficient for the House's needs. Now we have our debate, however, and let us not decry the fact that we have amendments-albeit late in the day-and a day in which to discuss them.
	I intend to raise certain points, not to criticise the proposals but to ask for amplification on some of them, and that the Secretary of State look more closely at the implications of others. My general position is that we will support amendments of this kind, although there are some detailed considerations that it will be proper for us to raise.
	My first point relates to a matter that the Lord Chancellor touched on in his speech-the question of who will appoint the compliance officer.

Jack Straw: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

David Heath: Indeed. There is a problem with whom the compliance officer will work for and the status of the officer. The Lord Chancellor has considered the matter and come to the conclusion that he would prefer the compliance officer to be a creature of IPSA. My feeling is that that could raise complications, particularly in the context of the legal appeal process that is now incorporated in the Government's proposals. I ask the Lord Chancellor to consider carefully what would happen if the compliance officer's position were challenged in court-as I suspect it will be-on the ground that they are a person adjudicating on the actions of IPSA while being complicit in those actions. The level of independence necessary to prevent such a challenge is insufficiently illustrated in the appointment procedure.
	The status of the compliance officer is a little confusing at the moment. The only thing that we learn from the details of the new schedule is that the officer will not be an officer of the Crown. By definition they will not be an Officer of the House-nor should they be-so it is a little difficult to know exactly where they will lie in the great firmament. It is important that we at least attempt to get an answer to that question. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has suggested informally that the Judicial Appointments Commission might be a vehicle, and the Lord Chancellor mentioned it in his speech. I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that it is an imperfect answer, but it may be better than all the other imperfect answers that have been brought forward. However, we may need to consider the matter again.
	I turn to new clause 71, about which I have a simple question. It states that any of the new lay members who are to be added to the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority under proposed new section 2A(6) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 will cease to be a member of the Committee if they become a Member of either House of Parliament. Why was that role not included in the list of disqualifications under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which new schedule 6 states will apply to the compliance officer? Why adopt the way of disqualifying lay members set out in new clause 71, rather than simply list them under the 1975 Act? It would be simpler to have people listed in one place than to have to search around various laws for statutory disqualifications.
	I do not wish to cast any doubt on Mr. Speaker's judgment-heaven forfend-but I wonder whether he should be required to gain a resolution of the House not only on the membership of the Committee, as was the case when the original members were appointed, but on the remuneration and allowances of the members. It does not seem entirely unreasonable that Mr. Speaker should consider the matter and put it before the House for resolution, rather than simply determine almost by holy writ how much the members should be paid. There have been occasions when the actions of previous Speakers and their advisers on the House of Commons Commission have not been as transparent as some Members have wished, and this is a matter on which transparency is devoutly to be wished for.
	On new clause 72, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire raised an important point about the advice that IPSA is able to give, and I agree with him entirely that the compliance officer is not the right person to give it. How could the compliance officer possibly advise on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a particular claim, and then if challenged determine the matter on the basis of his own advice? It is simply an untenable position.
	The new general duty of IPSA that the new clause will introduce in proposed new section 3A(2) of the 2009 Act as a result of Kelly recommendation 41 is:
	"In carrying out its functions the IPSA must have regard to the principle that members of the House of Commons should be supported in efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently carrying out their Parliamentary functions."
	I wonder whether that could be expanded so that statutory provision was made for advice to be available to Members. The new clause goes part of the way, by stating that Members should be supported, but it does not explicitly state in what way they should be supported. In my view, advice should be part of that support.
	While I am addressing new clause 72, may I ask the Lord Chancellor about proposed new subsections (8) and (9) of section 6 of the 2009 Act-the numbering is inevitably complicated when we are amending a previous enactment-which deal with how IPSA will make public information about claims? The new clause states that IPSA itself can decide what information it is appropriate to make available and how often and in what way that information should be published. That is fine-it is an independent body-but it will not be fine if we have backsliding from the position on the publication of Members' expenses that we have already reached through great adversity. It seems necessary that we impress on IPSA, even if only by exhortation rather than in statute, that the starting point should be the point that we have already reached. We should not revert to the secrecy that we had before.
	I believe that the Lord Chancellor has dealt with the matter of retrospectivity in pay. However, it is not abundantly clear from new clause 73 that it is to be dealt with in the way that he suggested. It would be entirely inappropriate for retrospectivity to be applied to a previous Parliament, for instance, and I can see no obstacle to that in the current drafting of the new clause. I notice that proposed new section 4A(3) states:
	"A determination by virtue of subsection (2) may make different provision for different offices or positions or different classes of member".
	I do not recognise different classes of Member of the House.

Jack Straw: rose-

David Heath: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can enlighten me.

Jack Straw: I will not invite you to declare an interest from the Chair in this matter, Mr. Gale, although I could. The provision is perfectly innocent. There is one class of Member-we are all elected as Members of Parliament. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, some time ago the House decided that it should make additional payments to Chairmen of Select Committees and Public Bill Committees and other office holders. It also determined that there should be different levels of payment for different levels of responsibility. We have sought to replicate that in the new clause, to ensure that in setting pay, IPSA takes account of decisions of the House about such Members.

David Heath: I was quite sure that that was the Lord Chancellor's intention, but I do not know why that is not considered to be covered by the term "different offices or positions" and why the new clause has to mention "different classes of member", which is an expression that inevitably rankles and one that I would not entirely encourage the use of.

Jack Straw: No part of the new clause states that there is a first class of Member, which is Labour and Conservative Members, a second class of Scottish and Welsh nationalists and anybody else, and then a third class, well below the salt, of Liberal Democrats. Attractive though that may be, it is no part of our intention.

David Heath: It is very important that IPSA hears that. Of course, different parties in the House are treated differently in how financing is provided, so it is not unreasonable to draw attention to the enormity suggested by "different classes of member".

Robert Smith: The provision is drawn quite widely, so there is a concern that IPSA might choose to define different classes of Member or decide that Members from different constituencies are due different pay levels depending on the nature of the work that they do for their constituents. The new clause would enable IPSA to make that decision if it wanted to.

David Heath: It would indeed. This may be a particularly live issue for Members representing Scottish constituencies, as it is not beyond the bounds of reason for someone to suggest that, because there are other elected Members doing casework in those constituencies, there might be a discrepancy. This is an unwise signal to send, so I ask the Lord Chancellor to look at it.
	Another issue implicit in new clause 73 is the start date of salary. I would like to raise an issue of concern, on which the House should take a view in the very near future. Owing to the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have declared that they are standing down at the next election, we shall have an unprecedented turnover of Members and many new ones will enter the House. That will require a significant degree of induction in order to bring them up to speed. I have always felt that our system is too precipitate-immediately following a general election, the pantechnicon arrives at No. 10 Downing street and everything changes; we start with a new Government and a new Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
	A strong argument can be made for a period of reflection to allow preparations to be made, as is normal in almost every other legislature and almost every other governmental arrangement. A period of reflection is important as new roles and responsibilities are established and new posts are taken up. However, there is an implicit bar to that happening under proposed new section 4(6), which states:
	"No payment of salary is to be made to a member before the member has made and subscribed the oath".
	I am not arguing that Members should not subscribe the oath or undertake equivalent procedures in order to take their place in the House, or that Members should be paid if they are not prepared to be full Members of the House. I am simply saying that if the intention is for Parliament to assemble and for oaths to be sworn at the earliest opportunity in order to prevent any interruption to payment of the salaries of existing Members or new ones, it will work against the interests of good governance. I believe that the House should take a view on that at some stage.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman puts a delicate point, but provision is made for pay to go back to the day or day after the election. If we sign on, say, two weeks after the election, that will be within the month and it is quite likely that we will get paid. If the election were held at the end of the month, there might be a slight temporary problem, but even the present banking system might be able to tide us over.

David Heath: That may be true, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a problem here, particularly for new Members, who may not have received any salary of any kind during the period immediately before the election, because they left their jobs in order to fight it. They then may face the prospect of being without payment for a considerable period after the election. That puts pressure on the House authorities to convene the House at an earlier time than would otherwise be the case. I do not want to overplay this issue, but I feel that there is a case for proper and careful induction of new Members, so I do not want there to be an impediment simply because of how Members are paid.

Andrew MacKinlay: rose-

Andrew Miller: rose-

David Heath: Two Members want to intervene.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's view that we sometimes rush things in having the Queen's Speech about a week or eight days from the general election. What should happen is that Parliament convenes for swearing in and appointing the Speaker, but then there should be an interregnum between that time and the Queen's Speech, allowing Ministers to master their briefs and new Members to have a proper induction.

David Heath: I, in turn, have a great deal of sympathy for that suggestion, as I believe it is probably the best way of dealing with the problem. I hope that we can have discussions between the various interested parties to see if we can reach a view on that.

Andrew Miller: I was elected to the 1992 Parliament, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and I recall that the Easter recess occurred immediately after the election; there was a gap. Practical problems have been identified, and the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point that needs looking at, especially given what IPSA is saying about setting up loan procedures and so forth. In my own case, I recall having to take out a whopping great loan from the bank-a fairly unacceptable position to be in, but there we are. The payment of salary needs looking at, but I am not sure exactly how, unless we understand what IPSA intends to do with its loan proposals.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. I am simply saying that we should not assume that every Member is of independent means or has a sufficiently good credit rating to be able to borrow money at will. Some are likely to find themselves in considerable difficulties, and we should recognise that and make our arrangements accordingly.
	Allow me to help the Lord Chancellor in his interpretation of the numbering relating to new clause 73, as I have now worked out how the proposed new subsections (2) and (3) relate to (1)-and he has obviously done so as well. The new clause leaves those proposed subsections (2) and (3) outside the amendments to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and freestanding, which may or may not be a good idea, but makes sense in terms of the architecture of that new clause.
	On new clause 75, let me express the opinion that I am not sure that the introduction of civil law is necessarily helpful, as it will add a further complication. We have the criminal law to deal with actions that are serious misdemeanours on the part of Members, and I hope that it will be used appropriately. This new procedure allows the imposition of penalties for non-assistance, as it were, and then the application of a proper penalty, but introducing the concept of civil remedy as well makes life more difficult rather than easier. I am not convinced that that is the best way of dealing with what I accept is a difficult problem.
	The relevant part of the related new schedule 7 -paragraph (5)(4)-states:
	"In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the amount is recoverable, if a county court so orders on the application of the Compliance Officer, as if it were payable under an order of that court."
	I do not understand what that means. What is says is that if a county court makes an order, it is payable as if it were a county court order. Well, yes-it would be, because that is what it is. There must be some purpose in the wording that eludes me here, so I would be grateful for some assistance.

Peter Bottomley: It just means that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland, the compliance officer has to go to the county court and make an application, and that if that court agrees, it becomes payable.

David Heath: Yes, if a county court makes an order, it is payable, so it does not need a subsequent provision saying
	"as if it were payable under an order of that court"
	It is an order of the court, so there must be some further meaning that I do not understand; it seems to me to be tautological and I do not like tautology in statute. I hope that we might avoid that, if at all possible.
	My final comments-I appreciate that this is a large group of amendments and that I have already spoken to them for some time-relate to pensions. I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will look again at the provision. I do not think that it was drafted entirely in accordance with what Kelly recommended: in my opinion, it gives IPSA a much wider role than he intended. Its proposed role in the appointment and, particularly, the "disappointment" of trustees is unhelpful, and contradicts the normal practice applying to major pension schemes outside the House. In its excessive zeal to prevent MPs from determining their pension arrangements, the measure prevents them from taking a view as members of a pension scheme-rather than as Members of Parliament-on the administration of that scheme. I hope that when we next consider the issue, a revised proposal will have been tabled after proper discussion with the trustees of the pension scheme. It beggars belief that no one thought that that was a necessary prerequisite for the clause.
	I think that, in broad terms, the many new clauses and new schedules would implement what was proposed by Kelly, which is the only test to which I wish to submit them. As I have said, I think we should look further at aspect of them to ensure that they have internal logic and have been properly drafted, but I intend to support them. I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to improve them at a later stage if there are questions that remain unanswered, preferably as a result of the tabling of appropriate amendments by the Lord Chancellor.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the spirit of the exchanges that have taken place. I am sure all Members will agree that it is vital for us to resolve these detailed matters before the new Parliament, difficult though that task will be. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), some of them will be harder to resolve than others. The hon. Gentleman also stole one of my lines. In my evidence to the Kelly committee, I recommended that all its members should read Plato's "Republic". I thought that that was not bad, coming from a secondary school boy. It seemed to me that this challenge had been in existence for 3,000 years and would continue, and that it was therefore important for us to try our best to give the right powers to IPSA and the compliance officer.
	I, too, struggled with the issue of the way in which the post should be filled, although I accepted one of the arguments of the academic lawyers in one respect. I believe that the compliance officer should, as far as possible. be at arm's length from the IPSA membership. I am still struggling to come up with fresh ideas about exactly what should be the nature of the beast, but I think we all understand what we are seeking to achieve.
	I intervened on both my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on the issue of pensions. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I spent a good part of my time negotiating on pension funds with large companies. In the context of accrued rights, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the situation that occurs when a company is taken over. He may recall that in the dim and distant past I tabled a private Member's Bill, some of whose proposals were incorporated in the Pensions Act 1995. I think that he made a fair point, and I agree that issues relating to accrued rights should be dealt with separately. Rights involving benefits that people have earned here and have transferred to the scheme, and the application of those benefits to family members-the potential of death in service, for instance-must be protected, as they are in the rest of the pensions world.
	I think that we have dealt adequately with the question of trustees. I am sure my right hon. Friend accepts that, except in very few exceptional circumstances, Member trustees can be appointed and dismissed only by members of the scheme. The number of such trustees is, I think, a matter for discussion, and it may need to be clarified.
	Last week an article was published in my local press suggesting that IPSA should be responsible for determining the sitting days of the House-on the basis of a crass misunderstanding on the part of the person who wrote to the media assuming that when we are not here we are on paid holiday. All Members throughout the House surely agree that the issue of sitting times must be determined by the House itself.
	I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said about informal advice. None of us has enough time-or, in most cases, enough background skills-to make some of the finer judgments that are needed for the running of our offices when it comes to issues such as employment law or procurement. For example, I found myself needing to renew a lease for a photocopier in my constituency office whose terms caused me to want to take advice. We currently have a mechanism for that, although people have suggested that it is not very satisfactory. I agree that that should not be a function of the compliance office, to the spirit of whose role it would be entirely contrary, but it should be possible for a Member to say to someone, for instance, "I have been confronted with the following situation. Would you advise me to enter into this contract?"
	I believe that those issues can be fine-tuned in time for Report. I hope that all Members will pull together to try to ensure that we create a mechanism that does not just work in practice, but provides the degree of confidence that the public rightly demand of the systems that we put in place.

Mark Field: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that it essential for us to put these matters on to a statutory footing, and I welcome the Government's determination for that to be done. As my right hon. Friend said, nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of parliamentary democracy in this country than for the allowances scandal to permeate the next Parliament as it has permeated this one. These issues require urgent and definitive resolution, and, as a number of other Members have said, we owe it to the many people who will serve for the first time in the next Parliament to put the House in order, however belatedly.
	I want to speak briefly on two of the new clauses. I am mildly unhappy about the proposal in new clause 73 that IPSA will not take on fully fledged responsibility for the setting of MPs' salaries until potentially as late as 1 April 2012. I appreciate that the Secretary of State said that that was of IPSA's own doing, but we need to recall that this whole allowances scandal started because successive Executives over about the past 30 years refused or failed to implement Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations for salary increases. We heard a lot of grandstanding by party leaders over that period-and I acknowledge that leaders of Conservative, as well as Labour, Governments have been guilty of that. We therefore allowed a system to develop under which there was, effectively, a salary supplement through the allowances system, which grew like Topsy, especially after the resolution of the House in July 2001-without an SSRB recommendation-for a hefty 40 per cent. increase in the second-home allowance.
	I fear that failure to get this system on to a proper footing, and therefore reliance on the interim measure that has been in place since January 2008, will result in further grandstanding by party leaders over the next two years, which risks a further injustice being done. What happens if the formula that was set in place in January conflicts with, for instance, a pay pause in the public sector? If we choose the path of least resistance, how can we suggest that MPs are not once again setting their own salary-the problem that started much of this episode, which has been so corrosive to parliamentary democracy in the past nine months? I would prefer IPSA to be given the authority at once. I accept that it will need to be in touch with the SSRB, and this may well take as long as a year, so we might not be able to do anything until April 2011. However, giving a long-stop date that is, effectively, two years in the future will bring forth the potential for there to be lots of problems, which will mean that this issue will not go away in the next Parliament, as all of us would wish.
	I also wish to say a few words about new clause 71 on the membership of the Speaker's Committee. I would have liked that Committee to have been abolished. We have a notional safeguard in place, as it is proposed that three lay persons should be appointed by resolution of the House of Commons, but we have to face facts. The Members Estimate Committee-the body that preceded the Speaker's Committee-conducted itself, at the margins at least, in a disgraceful way. There was deliberate manipulation by party managers of all parties to ensure that, as far as possible, the public were kept in the dark. Why else did that body go to such unbelievable trouble to prevent publication of all the parliamentary expenses? We had a protracted High Court case that did great discredit to this House. I personally feel that the MEC-now the Speaker's Committee-does not speak for me; I do not share the notion that it represents the interests of Members of Parliament. Rather, its behaviour has been one of the biggest problems. In view of what we are trying to achieve with IPSA, I would have liked all these matters to have been taken out of the hands of any such committee, and, indeed, out of the hands of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
	These are relatively minor matters, and I appreciate that we now have to move forward with the recommendations before us. I therefore hope the Committee will be able to agree on most of the issues tonight. We have discussed the new clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). I hope that the Secretary of State will give some consideration to the concerns in this regard. We should have a pre-clearance system, in order to avoid the terrible, and nonsensical, situation whereby open and transparent claims are entirely reversed some years further down the line. If we are going to have the IPSA machinery and a compliance officer in place, it is not beyond the wit of man to ensure that we also have such a system in place for the protection not only of Members of this House, but the taxpayer.

Angus Robertson: I do not plan to delay the Committee for long, but I think it is worth going through the genesis of the changes we are discussing this evening. When the expenses abuse revelations were at their height, the then Speaker convened a meeting of the leaders of all the parties that take up seats at Westminster: the three UK party leaders, joined by colleagues from the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish parties, myself included. We agreed that radical action was required. We decided that, first, there should be immediate restrictions on expenses pending a review, and a Scottish National party proposal that the transparency standards operating in the Scottish Parliament should also apply to Westminster was agreed. I think that was the most important agreement at that meeting, because from now on it will be impossible to go back to the kind of secrecy that was highlighted by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). We cannot go back to the days of secrecy; transparency is the key to the future. We also agreed that an independent inquiry should proceed, and that conclusions should be agreed in full. The party leaders thought that it was important that all our parties should work together, and I am seeking to reflect that in my comments.
	Following this meeting, there were regular follow-up meetings, chaired by the Justice Secretary and the Leader of the House. I cannot remember how many meetings there have now been since that inaugural meeting, but the figure is about six or seven. Given the justified levels of public opprobrium about the expenses abuses, it was absolutely right for the political parties to work together to expedite these changes as speedily as possible. Everybody has in the back of their mind a concern that rushed legislation might be bad legislation, and it has to be said that a variety of hoops have had to be jumped through at a variety of stages to get us to where we are now, but, by working together, we are finally getting close to finding a fix for the problems facing us.
	These meetings were the driving force behind the creation of the parliamentary standards authority. I am pleased that it was an SNP proposal that the agency should be designated as "independent". That argument was persuasive; clearly, even Westminster parties are open to persuasion on independence, at least sometimes. We therefore now have a body called the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-because independent it must, of course, be.
	Initially, IPSA was empowered to deal only with expenses. Pay and pensions were not included in the initial legislation for reasons we completely understand. That was to be put right at the earliest opportunity, however. We have heard from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) of the confusion about how quickly that might proceed, but we are here today and that is very much to be welcomed because, together with other improvements including on matters relating to compliance, we are now moving ahead on the pay and pensions issues. That is key, because parliamentarians should not be responsible in any way for their own pay and pensions, or for setting their own expenses levels.
	The Justice Secretary is well aware of my disappointment that the gold standards operating in the Scottish Parliament for matters of compliance were not emulated in legislation dealing with MPs transgressing in this House. There is an irony in this. The Westminster Chamber legislated for the creation of the Scottish Parliament and set the rules under which it would operate, including criminal sanctions when Members of the Scottish Parliament transgressed the rules. However, Members of this House-Members of the Conservative and Labour parties-did not agree that that same high, gold standard of criminal sanction should apply to Members of Parliament in this Chamber in the future. That is totally beyond me. The SNP believed, and continues to believe, that criminal sanctions that can apply to MSPs should also apply to Members of this House. Notwithstanding that shortcoming, I believe that creating an IPSA with real teeth is vital, and that is what is being completed by these provisions. MPs have forfeited any credible right, as have the UK Government, to determine pay, expenses and pensions-that was forfeited some time ago.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised some important and commendable points about compliance officers and some other queries, but I have no reason to doubt that the Justice Secretary will continue his collegial approach before Report so that things can be smoothed and ironed out. For that reason, I shall be supporting the progress of these provisions today.

Peter Bottomley: I often agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), but I do not agree with him on a number of points today. For example, why should MPs not be responsible on these matters? For most of my time in Parliament, it has been perfectly reasonable for Members of Parliament to say what their pay arrangements should be. The fact that they have not always adopted what I thought was sensible is probably more my fault than that of my colleagues. It is clear to me that MPs' pay arrangements should be set before a new Parliament, should come into effect at the beginning of it and should not change during the Parliament, irrespective of whether it lasts for six months or for five years until the Parliament expires. That would be a far more elegant and sensible arrangement than the current one of wondering whether there should be increases each year or other kinds of conventional things. Even if the arrangement is not conventional, if we know what the terms are when we get elected, that should do us until we again come up for election or deselection.
	The second thing that the hon. Gentleman said that I would not mind taking him up on was his comment about the gold standard of criminal sanctions. Criminal sanctions ought to be for criminal offences, and the standards that we ought to be meeting are lower than that; we ought to be meeting the reasonable expectations of Members of Parliament, not just expectations relating to "beyond all reasonable doubt". I hope that Martin Bell, with whom I served on the Standards and Privileges Committee, will not mind my saying that that is one of the areas where he and I failed on a number of occasions. If I were to allocate some of the "blame"-that is probably the right word-I would say that the House authorities or past occupants of the Speaker's Chair did not do what they might have done when Elizabeth Filkin was the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I doubt whether compliance officers, whatever their responsibilities, can carry the same weight as a good Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that if he were able during the passage of this Bill to find a better expression than "compliance officer" to balance the "Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards", that would be a good thing. We know what is understood by "compliance officer" and what the responsibilities will be, but it is not an elegant title.
	Plainly we cannot go on having final salary pensions where-this will not apply to me as I have reached 65- any increases in the salary of someone who has been in this House for 25 years and is between 60 and 65 are still multiplied by their years. Any sudden increase of 30 per cent. in the pay of such a person in recognition of various parts of an MP's job would multiply through all their previous years of service, even though their actual pay would have been much lower. Members of Parliament ought to have a way of expressing in public, whether just to IPSA or in this Chamber too, that we think that we ought to move on to an average salary system at best. By all means, let us keep what we have got in the past-I declare that I have the full limit-but we ought to be able to say clearly that we need a reasonable compromise between not putting people off coming into Parliament and not maintaining this kind of gilt-edged, gold-plated standard pension. It may have been good at a time when our pay was very low but if IPSA is to do its job, the pay will not remain very low for very long. I do not see where in the IPSA proposals we can reach the stage where it is possible for IPSA to recommend that part of any significant change in MPs' pay should be non-taxable and non-pensionable.

Jack Straw: Non-taxable?

Peter Bottomley: Non-taxable and non-pensionable. The idea of bringing in a receipt for every small bit of spending is one of the mistakes into which the House and those who have been invigilating its affairs have fallen. I examined my spending for two weeks, keeping the receipts for two weeks. If I buy 80 items in Lidl in Worthing for £120, two of which are relevant to my office expenses, I am supposed to put in the list of all 80 things-the details of everything other than those two things either will or will not be redacted-so that I can get back some money that I have spent on batteries, CDs and so on. Such an arrangement is bizarre. I shall not go into the detail of all the other allowances, but one element that I hope IPSA will consider is having part of the pay being non-taxable and non-pensionable.
	The Secretary of State has been very kind to the Committee, although I do not think that he understands all this all the time-I am sure that he understands much of it much of the time. I hope that the Leader of the House does not mind my saying that this is an incredibly complicated result of a suggestion that we did not need primary legislation. We may not have needed it, but this is quite a lot to have to digest quite late in an afternoon when many of the other experts are not present.
	I want to reach the stage where Members of Parliament can do their job without having the skills of a good accountant. We ought to have reasonable accounts. We certainly ought to reach the stage-I think we had this with the parliamentary commissioner system-where if a Member of Parliament gets clearance for an arrangement from the Fees Office, irrespective of whether it is judged afterwards to be wrong, the MP is not penalised for it. There is an argument as to what constitutes approval and what is accepted, but we need to have some way of ensuring that MPs cannot be chased back too far, too often on too many things. MPs ought to be able to take advice from the authorities, rely on that advice, make their arrangements as simple as possible and maintain them. That would address most of the fears that people have had and most of the excitement involving the media.

Charles Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of colleagues on both sides of the House have ceased to claim legitimate allowances because they are so frightened of the reputational risk of getting something wrong?

Peter Bottomley: I am. That is a reminder that this House should not be for those who are well off and those who are poor, both of whom can come to this place and not have too much of a worry. It also should not just be for those who are flashers and those who are church mice; we should also include those who are normally embarrassed if they are seen without their clothes on. We need to try to ensure a reasonable spectrum.
	Many MPs who stay here for some time move through inexperience and poverty, and end up reasonably comfortable-they may have grown out of their family responsibilities and their housing costs will have probably reduced. All I can do is tell hon. Members what it was like for my first 22 years here. I had two dependent children when I got elected and I had a third child when I had been in Parliament for seven years. When my wife was working less than part-time, I very nearly had to leave Parliament because I did not want to go either crooked or broke. I hope that IPSA will take that kind of thing into account.
	May I end by discussing something that is not contained in these provisions? In my early years, I shared a large room in Old Palace Yard. One of my colleagues married his secretary-she was a competent secretary and she was a good wife afterwards, Why should such a person have to lose her job in those circumstances? What if I had married her, so that she could go on working for him? I was not free to do so -[Laughter.] The wife of a Member of Parliament can be elected to this place and get their own pay through the taxpayer, so what is so different about the person who gives support as a spouse? I offer Pauline Ashley as probably one of the best examples. She gave devoted service to Jack Ashley's constituents and a great deal of help to Jack. I can think of many other such examples-I shall not name any involving those in the Chamber-where the same thing has applied. This was a bad suggestion and I hope that IPSA will throw it out. Obviously, one needs to justify the work that the family member is doing, but a blanket exclusion is wrong.

Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I apologise for not being able to be here at the start of the debate because of a meeting of the House of Commons Commission. I wish to contribute a few remarks in my capacity as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. I know that the Secretary of State indicated during earlier exchanges that he acknowledges the need for further thought to be given to the specific measures proposed, but I am anxious to ensure that the trustees' concerns are articulated in this debate.
	We all accept that the world has changed, that the coming into being of IPSA means that there is a need for some change in our pension arrangements and that it will be necessary to make some legislative changes to give effect to such change. However, I am concerned at the speed with which these arrangements have appeared, at the lack of any consultation and-far more so-at the way in which they sit very uncomfortably, to my way of thinking, with the fact that during the latter part of last year the Government commissioned from the Senior Salaries Review Body a fundamental review of MPs' pension arrangements. To the best of my knowledge that body completed its work by the end of last year, as it was asked to do. I do not know whether it has yet submitted its report to the Government-the trustees have certainly not yet seen it. I would have thought it made a great deal more sense for that report to have been delivered and for its recommendations to have been assimilated and taken on board before we made the sort of changes that are anticipated and provided for in these new schedules and other add-ons to the Bill.
	In particular, the trustees have a concern that serving Members of this House should have confidence that the pension benefits that they have already built up in the fund to date cannot be taken away without their consent. As drafted, the Bill does not provide that protection because it is giving huge additional powers to IPSA that, in the past, this House and its Members, as members of the pension fund, have held. Although under the current fund structure the power is exercised by the Leader of the House, that takes place only through regulations. The Leader of the House has to bring to the Floor of the House, for consideration by the members of the scheme, any changes that are wished. In future, according to these arrangements, IPSA could, in the extreme, simply make a scheme that removes the entitlement to all or any of the benefits earned in the fund by any or indeed every member. Although we would all hope, obviously, that IPSA would never take such a course of action, one has to ask whether it makes sense to give it the power to do so.
	The Kelly report made two recommendations on MPs' pensions. The first was on the independent determination of MPs' pensions and the second was on oversight of the administration of parliamentary pensions. The Bill goes well beyond that and gives IPSA substantially greater powers over the structure of the fund-the power to determine how it is administered goes well beyond the oversight and scrutiny recommended by Kelly and gives the authority control over the management of the fund, the application of its assets and the constitution and proceedings of the funds' trustees as well as the power to determine, with Treasury consent, the rate of the Exchequer contribution without consulting the Government Actuary.
	Although, in a sense, those powers replicate the existing arrangements by vesting with IPSA the powers that are currently vested in the Leader of the House, the difference, of course, is that the Leader of the House has to bring these matters to the House for its consent. We need proper and detailed consideration of whether it is right for IPSA to have these extensive new powers that go far beyond what was recommended in the Kelly report. I think it would be better to leave vested with the trustees some of the powers that they already have. I do not think we should undermine the objective of MPs' pensions' being influenced by an independent body, but the arrangements as proposed today go too far.
	For example, IPSA has the power to appoint a trustee body without any Member representation on it. I do not think anybody would take exception to the idea that IPSA should nominate a member of the board of trustees, but to give it the power, in effect, to remove the trustees and to appoint its own board of trustees seems to me to be going much too far. Is there any other pension fund anywhere that could be subjected to such a degree of interference? It would be unlikely, in practice, that IPSA would ever do so, but the measure goes too far in terms of the sweeping powers that it gives the authority.
	The legal structure of the fund is highly complex and the detail is largely set out in 1993 regulations, which are regularly amended. I think that the wholesale transfer of powers to IPSA, as proposed by the Bill, will in effect empower IPSA to rewrite the rules of the fund and could jeopardise the ability of the trustees properly to manage it. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that there will be further consultation with the trustees, but as the Bill is drafted all Members should be deeply concerned at what is being proposed. We frequently say that we want our arrangements to be comparable to those elsewhere and those in the real world, but my concern is that these proposals go to lengths that no other pension fund anywhere would expect.

Mark Field: Although I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has to say, does he not understand that it is not a matter of whether the pension fund is working well and whether the trustee arrangements provide an arm's length between Parliament and the taxpayer? The issue is the perception that we are enriching ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) rightly said, a lot of MPs' spouses do a fantastically good job and provide tremendously good value to the taxpayer, but none the less there is a perception of our own enrichment. The changes therefore apply not only to employing spouses and issues to do with our salary but to our pensions. We have a different and rather more generous pension scheme than many others, even in the public sector. The public perception means that IPSA needs to have its tentacles across this matter, and that is no reflection on the ability or otherwise of the trustees who have done their work in this regard over the past few years.

Nick Harvey: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I said categorically at the outset that I accept that the world has changed and that the Kelly report made two recommendations on pension arrangements. Specifically, IPSA will have a say in what we get out of the scheme and what we pay into it. I am not trying to resist that at all. The hon. Gentleman just used the expression "IPSA needs to have its tentacles across this matter". I am not resisting that-I am merely resisting the idea that IPSA should delve its tentacles into these matters in an attempt to run the whole thing. It is possible to hit the right balance but, as the Bill is drafted, the Government have failed to do that. I would welcome it if they would get into a meaningful dialogue with the trustees so that on Report we can arrive at some arrangements that will take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making while leaving a viable pension arrangement with a scheme that will have the same sort of autonomy and power to organise its own affairs that any other pension fund would take for granted.

Charles Walker: I shall be very brief. I want to start by apologising to my wife Fiona, my son Alistair, my other son James and my daughter Charlotte. I wish, on reflection, that I had made a great deal more money before I got into this place. If I had private wealth, I would not need to rely on the taxpayer to fund my excellent staff, my travel and the cost of my office. If I did not have to rely on the taxpayer to do those things, I would not fear the knock at the door from the media, the investigators or the new compliance officers. I and my family fear that knock at the door. We fear the reputational risks that now go hand in hand with being a Member of Parliament.
	Let me conclude my opening remarks by saying that over the past nine months I have seen many good and decent colleagues have their careers needlessly destroyed to sell a few newspapers. The loss of those colleagues to public life will be sorely felt by their constituents and this country.
	IPSA is going to take over the management and control of our pensions. I recognise that I will get an extremely good pension from having been a Member of Parliament-it is one of the best pensions in the public sector-but there should be a recognition that my colleagues and I make one of the largest contributions to their pension of any public sector worker. I think that the only comparable public sector group that makes such a significant contribution is firemen and fire officers. Yes, our pension is generous, but it is not as generous, when set against other pensions, as the press would have our electorate believe.
	Finally, it is important that compliance is proportionate and that we have safe harbour-that we can seek advice from qualified, expert people on how to comply. If the compliance system is to be successful, there must be a focus on ensuring that we, as Members of Parliament, get things right first time and that we understand the rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has said, so much of the advice that we have received from the Fees Office was given in good faith but has proved to be totally wrong. We cannot afford to allow that to happen again.

Jack Straw: May I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I hope that its conclusion on Report will be provisions in the Parliamentary Standards Act as amended that will ensure that the new system of parliamentary pay, allowances and pensions command the respect of the public-that is fundamental-and enable Members of Parliament to do their duty without harassment or undue penalty to them or their families. Let me pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). He made a generous and heartfelt apology, probably not for the first time, to his wife and children for his eccentricity in choosing to put himself in the public firing line, and I think that his position will be echoed in the experiences of Members on both sides of the House.
	It is worth recalling that there was a great fight to have Members of Parliament paid at all; I think it was the Liberal Government of Asquith who first provided for their payment. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and I have been in the House for more than three decades, and certainly when I came to the House 31 years ago, the pay was lousy.
	I was at the Bar at first, which was fine, and then I became a special adviser, which was also fine, but then I had to be found outdoor relief when I was peremptorily dismissed as a special adviser because I had become a parliamentary candidate, and I did not have a particularly good job in those two years. I thought about going back to the Bar but, as colleagues who have been in that noble profession will know, although I may have earned quite a lot of money, I would have received virtually nothing from ever difficult solicitors. Granada Television offered me a job as a researcher, and even that was better paid than the pay I "enjoyed" when I became a Member of Parliament.
	I was fortunate, because I was able to earn a bit of extra money through journalism-quite a lot in due course-and I had a wife who had embarked on a sensible and stable career, but notwithstanding the beginning of Short money when I went into the shadow Cabinet in 1987, my office costs had to be subsidised out of my family's income every year until I became a Minister. Every year, the Fees Office would approach me with an estimate of what I had to pay it, not because I had over-claimed and had to repay, but so that my staff in Blackburn and in the House could be paid and so that other costs could be met. Yes, the House went too far in correcting that situation, but we are all anxious-I am sure that Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues at IPSA are taking this on board-that the situation should not revert to that which obtained before, when a lot of people were actively prevented or put off from coming to the House.
	I worry that future generations of very good people will be put off, partly by public scrutiny. We all have to accept such scrutiny because the House signed up with great alacrity to the Freedom of Information Act 2000; indeed, it was the House itself that demanded that Parliament should be included in that Act. Ever compliant with the wishes of the House, I, as the sponsoring Minister said yes to that. I worry that future generations will also be put off by the overall remuneration, which is a worry for us all. It is the people of the country, rather than the people in the House, who will suffer if we cannot attract into politics people of quality and assiduity, whatever their social background, monetary wealth or lack thereof.

David Winnick: When I first came to the House, there was no secretarial allowance at all, and the pension for MPs had been introduced only the year before. However, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the comments of several Members in this debate, at least since I came into the Chamber, who seem to blame the Fees Office for much of what has occurred and what has been exposed in recent months? I believe that, on the whole, the Fees Office did a useful job and gave good advice, and we should be careful not to transfer the blame from ourselves on to officials who have given very good service over the years.

Jack Straw: I have had the benefit of being in the Chamber for the whole debate and I do not think that there has been any personal criticism of members of the Fees Office. Everybody understands that a system that was not fit for purpose developed and that officials in the Fees Office did their best. Some completely impersonal general points about the experiences of Members have followed from that, one of which was that if a Member has made a complete disclosure to the Fees Office about an item of expenditure that they believed to be consistent with the rules, and if the Fees Office, after proper examination, then said that it was consistent with the rules and paid the Member, it is a little hard, to say the least, if subsequently there is a retrospective judgment that the Member should pay back that money. That would be even harsher in future, when the rules will be much clearer.
	Let me go through the points that have been made in the debate. I thought that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was cavilling at the beginning, when he was tweaking my tail about Kelly and legislation. I could have been cavilling in advance, by tweaking his tail about the fact that we would not have needed some of the legislative changes if the House had stuck to the original proposals that I put forward rather than those that he persuaded it to accept. I hope that we can conduct the rest of the debate in the spirit in which it proceeded after he had read out that cavilling stuff, which was no doubt put in there by Andy Coulson just to prove that the right hon. Gentleman is as partisan as the next person. I have to say that that act is not very convincing.

Peter Bottomley: Is that the kind of advocacy for which the right hon. Gentleman would not have been paid very much if he had done it before coming to Parliament?

Jack Straw: I would not have been paid at all for that, but I thought that I should offer the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire a gentle rebuke for departing from his usual ecumenical approach.
	I shall now come to a variety of issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members. He talked about the possibility of double jeopardy under new clause 70 and new schedule 6. Double jeopardy applies where someone has been through a criminal trial and is tried again for the same offence. There is double jeopardy: if someone commits a criminal offence, there can be consequences in respect of their employment. If someone in a position of trust with their employer commits fraud, even if it is not against their employer, and it is drawn to their employer's attention, they are unlikely to continue to be employed. There cannot be a rule to say that someone who has committed fraud against the building society that is nothing to do with his employer-let us say that it is a building firm, not a building society-cannot be drawn to the attention of the employer and has an absolute right to continue in that employment, notwithstanding the fact that it is plain that he was a fraudster from beginning to end. We all understand that, and the truth is that if someone egregiously breaks IPSA's rules, leaving aside whether he or she is prosecuted, other consequences are bound to flow from that, aside from any general reputational damage.
	On the firewall between IPSA and the compliance officer, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire knows, there was a lot of discussion about the architecture. The direct responsibility for administering the scheme of allowances and paying them and, I accept, giving day-to-day guidance and advice rests not with the authority qua the authority, but with the chief executive officer and his or her employees. The only job that IPSA has to do in respect of the compliance officer is to make the appointment. We have discussed whether there can be any alternatives, possibly to dismiss the compliance officer, but on very limited grounds.
	Once appointed, as the schedule 6 makes clear, the compliance officer is appointed for a fixed term of five years and then they go. So having been appointed, no purpose would be served by their toadying to IPSA in the hope of getting a further term, because no further term is permissible. That is sensible, and it is certainly something that Sir Christopher Kelly wanted.
	The right hon. Gentleman implied that a system could fall down if the compliance officer was asked to pass judgment on the people who appointed him. In a sense, it is not the first time that people in a judgmental, quasi-judicial position may be asked to do that. He or she will be appointed by IPSA. He or she is a separate, independent officer. Yes, it is very unlikely that he or she will pass judgment on the authority itself. He or she may well pass judgment on the chief executive officer and his or her staff. That is his or her job. I do not think for a second that the system will break down.
	Let us bear in mind the fact that the tribunal is run by entirely independent judges who are appointed formally by the Queen or me, but on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is entirely independent, and we can go all the way up the judicial tree. So the right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the concern, but I do not accept it; I do not think that things will work out that way.
	On pensions, about which there has been a lot of discussion, I accept and have said that there should be the same protection on accrued rights as for anyone else. I quite understand where the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was when I was opening the debate. I referred to provisions in the Pensions Act 1995, which provides protection for accrued rights, whereby they can be changed only with the active consent of beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. Our officials are looking closely at whether we can introduce such provisions on Report, and I will write to the relevant spokespeople, as I normally do, when I have draft clauses or proposals.
	On trustees, I have already said that we will seek to replicate the provisions of the Pensions Act 2004, so that a third of the trustees will be appointed by the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. We should consider the other aspects of the general law that applies to pension trusts and trustees. To repeat the point that was implicit in many of the remarks, we want to be in neither a better nor a worse position than other people in the public sector and in the private sector for that matter. I looked at my payslip yesterday, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne is entirely right to remind the House and public that, although we get good benefits, the deductions are huge. I understand that civil service deductions are about 3.5 per cent., but my deduction, which I could not quite understand and on which I might seek further evidence, amounted to well over 10 per cent.

Charles Walker: The Secretary of State is now paying 12 per cent., but in addition, for the next three months, he will be making backdated payments equivalent to £200 a month, because we changed our pension scheme on 1 April last year and the changes are coming into force in the last three months of this tax year.

Jack Straw: Ah, that saves me a letter, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
	I think that I satisfied the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the point about different classes. Although I had not thought about those different classes-class 1 parties, the main ones; class 2, the territorial ones; and class 3, the Liberal Democrats-I am warming to the idea, and if the general view in the House is that I should move a manuscript amendment on that, I would b happy to comply.

George Young: Can the Secretary of State tell the House when IPSA will assume responsibilities for running our pension scheme?

Jack Straw: That will be done by order.

Shailesh Vara: He has not got a clue.

Jack Straw: No, I have got a clue. I have got lots of clues, the first of which is that it will happen during the next Parliament, but I promise the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that when he handles the next set of amendments.  [ Interruption. ] Oh, here is the answer: 2011-12, and even Homer nodded.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke about MPs' pay and asked why new clause 73 explicitly provides that the first determination would not come into force until 1 April 2012. I want to make it clear that, until then, the decision of the House of July 2008 will apply. There is an automatic regulator of our salaries: the House has said by resolution that any recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body will be implemented. An agreement has already been reached for 2010, so the 2011 pay increase will arise from the SSRB and it will come from IPSA thereafter. It is proposed that there will be a first determination, which will be the equivalent of the quinquennial review that the SSRB carries out, for example, in respect of judicial salaries, and the frequency of further determinations will be a matter for IPSA thereafter.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) proposed that a flat salary, fixed at the beginning of a Parliament should apply irrespective of whatever happened thereafter. That has certain attractions and would certainly mean that every Member of Parliament carefully checked the inflation rate. Over a normal Parliament, if the Bank of England's target had been stuck to, one's salary would have been eroded by a compound 10 per cent. He and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire were sitting in the House-I was a hired hand-in the 1975 period, when inflation rose to 27 per cent., through no fault of the Labour Government. It then rose again to 22 per cent. in 1981, through every fault of the Conservative Government, including the doubling of VAT. Leaving aside the cause, the fact is that inflation was very high under both parties; that was difficult; and a fixed, flat salary would have caused all sorts of problems.

Peter Bottomley: I will not return to that point now. Will the Secretary of State kindly say what will be the arrangements for the staff of Members of Parliament, whether there will be guidance, and whether we will know the change in scales by April, when many of our staff will be expecting an annual review?

Jack Straw: The arrangements for members of staff will be a matter for the Parliamentary Standards Authority. I cannot anticipate what it will say. Meanwhile, one of the good things that has happened in recent years is that scales are now laid down. Members of staff must have contracts of employment and so on. That is a dramatic change from the ramshackle arrangements that existed years ago, when MPs themselves had to run the PAYE schemes, as those of us of a certain antiquity will remember.
	I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for the constructive approach that he has yet again taken, and for the consistent support that we have received from him.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West queried the term "compliance officer". It is not an elegant term, but I beg the Committee not to change it again. We could have used "independent regulator," but the Kelly report calls IPSA the independent regulator. We could have used "commissioner," which I would have preferred, but we have a Commissioner here. The term "compliance officer" may be prosaic, but at least it tells everyone what the person will do.
	The hon. Gentleman made some strong points about whether we should move from a final salary scheme to an average salary scheme. I understand that. It will be for the PSA and the SSRB to recommend. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman went on to make, that part of the pay should be non-pensionable and non-taxable. Personally, I do not agree with either proposition. If small businesses, which is essentially what we are for these purposes, want to offset an item such as batteries against their tax, they have to keep receipts.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Broxbourne is saying, "No, they don't," I would be pleased to hear from him.

Charles Walker: Small businesses are allowed to claim for the cost of accountancy, and according to Sir Christopher Kelly and IPSA, Members of Parliament will not be allowed to claim for the cost of accountancy.

Jack Straw: That is a fair point. Another point, which I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to make, but which I now make for him, is that small businesses claim under schedule D, which is rather wider because it refers to expenses "wholly and exclusively incurred" in connection with the business, rather than "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred", which is the provision under schedule E, the rubric for us.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West spoke eloquently about Members who had employed members of their family. I have never employed a member of my family, but not because I regarded myself as a superior being. I see no prospect of employing a member of my family, so that may allow me to say that I think that some of the adverse publicity that members of families have received in the course of the expenses row has been very unfair indeed. Everybody knows that because of serious abuse by one Member in particular, there need to be proper controls, but if members of the public want Members of Parliament to do two jobs, which they do-representing them in the House and also being available with great frequency in their constituency and at weekends-they must accept that that produces greater disruption even than working away from home. That is true.
	One of the biggest changes that has occurred in the past 30 years, or even in the past 15, is the huge increase in the constituency case loads of all Members of Parliament and the dramatic increase in the expectation of members of the public for the availability of their Member of Parliament. My predecessor could go to my constituency one Friday a month for about six hours. She never had a house in the place and never wanted one. She saw eight people by appointment, did a couple of other things and was correctly regarded as a good constituency Member, because she went to Blackburn much more frequently than many Members of Parliament went to their constituencies. Those days are gone, and the allowance system and the pay need to recognise that.
	I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member for North Devon, who speaks for the MEC, on the issue of pensions. We will also consider whether there should be a requirement to consult the Government Actuary's Department where there is a shift in the rate of Exchequer contribution. Officials worked extremely hard and under time pressure on the provisions. They sought to replicate the existing statutory provisions under the parliamentary scheme, but I accept that those may not be entirely replicable.
	With that-

George Young: I sense a peroration. The Secretary of State will recognise that a number of questions have been asked that he has not had time to answer, such as questions on the costs of the arrangements before us and about a number of areas where the amendments go way beyond what Kelly proposed. If he does not have the answers now, I quite understand. Perhaps he would be good enough to drop me a line with the answers to the questions that I put to him.

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the intervention. There will not be much of a peroration. It is the Member for Blackburn speaking, not a latter-day Enoch Powell.
	I shall answer some of the more specific questions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about what he thought was a tautology in new schedule 7, paragraph 5(4), which states:
	". . . if a county court so orders . . . as if it were payable under an order of that court."
	That is standard form wording used in social security legislation. I re-read it and I think it works.
	The money resolution related specifically to the pension provisions, which will obviously transfer a liability for pensions, but there is no net increase over and above what would otherwise have been paid. We expect the other provisions to be broadly neutral, as compared with where we were before, as IPSA will be losing functions as well as gaining ones. Overall pay and pensions will not add hugely to running costs because IPSA is already paying. A small policy function will be required, and it will use the SSRB to do the analysis.
	I have dealt with the issue of delay in pay and pensions, the issue of the compliance officer being wholly separate, and double jeopardy. I was asked whether a new compliance officer could be in post before Royal Assent and before April. Subject to the approval of the Committee today, which is the equivalent of a Second Reading of the new clauses, we are exploring with IPSA whether it would have the legal basis to go ahead and advertise for a compliance officer. It is entirely a matter for IPSA, but I hope it feels able to do so. Whether that means that the compliance officer will be in post by 1 April is a moot point, but I think we can expect the compliance officer to be in post by the time there is anything to comply with and any complaint to be made. I think IPSA will be able to meet that requirement.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asked about new schedule 7 on page 668 of the amendment paper. Paragraph 1, which gives the power to make a repayment direction, states at sub-paragraph (4)(b) that a Member could be required to
	"pay to the IPSA an amount reasonably representing the costs incurred by the IPSA in relation to the overpayment".
	The suggestion was that that went far further than Kelly had recommended. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at recommendation 45 on page 19 of the Kelly report, he will see that it says:
	"The independent regulator's enforcement regime should be strengthened by giving it the power to... Require the repayment of wrongly paid or misclaimed sums, with associated costs if appropriate."
	I shall certainly look again at whether the Bill goes too far. When the right hon. Gentleman first raised the matter, I thought that it did, but on further examination it does not. The issue is about reasonableness, which is better than appropriateness, and the Bill would be more tightly worded if it read,
	"reasonably representing the costs incurred by the IPSA".
	A requirement under that proposed new sub-paragraph could alone be the subject of an appeal to the first tier tribunal.
	Finally, Members asked why it was necessary to provide for the examination and calling of witnesses before the compliance officer. Those provisions are about my anxiety to meet the wishes of the House, and they were recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights in respect of previous legislation. If one is charged with a serious breach of regulations, one ought to have the opportunity, if necessary, to call one's own witnesses and to examine others. I think that that is a basic human right, with a capital H and a capital R. The situation might not come to that, and one hopes that it will not, but that right is pretty fundamental. In any case, one would have the right before the first tribunal, which would amount to a re-hearing of the case from the start.
	I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. If the House will forgive me, it will, I hope, take those detailed explanations as a substitute for a lengthy, prolix peroration. I commend the new clauses and schedules to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 New clause 70 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 71
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Membership of Speaker's Committee

'(1) Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1-
	(a) omit "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (c), and
	(b) after sub-paragraph (d) insert ", and
	(e) three lay persons appointed by resolution of the House of Commons."
	(3) For the heading of paragraph 2 substitute "Appointed members".
	(4) After paragraph 2 insert-
	 "Lay members
	2A (1) In paragraph 1(e) "lay person" means a person who is not, and has never been, a member of either House of Parliament.
	(2) A motion for a resolution under paragraph 1(e) may be made only with the agreement of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
	(3) The person the subject of the motion must have been selected by the Speaker on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
	(4) An appointment under paragraph 1(e) is to be for a fixed term not exceeding five years.
	(5) A person who has been appointed under paragraph 1(e) may not be appointed under paragraph 1(e) again.
	(6) A person appointed under paragraph 1(e) ceases to be a member of the Committee if the person becomes a member of either House of Parliament.
	(7) A person appointed under paragraph 1(e) may resign from the Committee by giving notice to the Committee.
	(8) The Speaker of the House of Commons may require the IPSA to pay to members of the Committee appointed under paragraph 1(e) such remuneration and allowances as the Speaker may determine.
	(9) The IPSA must make the payment accordingly.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 72
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Transparency etc

'(1) The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 3 insert-
	"3A General duties of the IPSA
	(1) In carrying out its functions the IPSA must have regard to the principle that it should act in a way which is efficient, cost-effective and transparent.
	(2) In carrying out its functions the IPSA must have regard to the principle that members of the House of Commons should be supported in efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently carrying out their Parliamentary functions."
	(3) In section 5 (MPs' allowances scheme) after subsection (5) insert-
	"(5A) When the scheme (or revision) is laid, the IPSA must publish in a way it considers appropriate-
	(a) the scheme (or revision), and
	(b) a statement of its reasons for adopting that scheme (or making that revision)."
	(4) In section 6 (dealing with claims under the MPs' allowances scheme) after subsection (7) insert-
	"(8) The IPSA must publish such information as it considers appropriate in respect of-
	(a) each claim made under or by virtue of this section, and
	(b) each payment of an allowance by the IPSA under or by virtue of this section.
	(9) The IPSA must publish the information at times it considers appropriate and in a way it considers appropriate.
	(10) The IPSA must determine procedures to be followed by the IPSA in relation to publication of the information, and in doing so must consult-
	(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,
	(b) the Leader of the House of Commons,
	(c) the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges,
	(d) the Compliance Officer, and
	(e) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 73
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: MPs' salaries

'(1) For section 4 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13) (MPs' salaries) substitute-
	"4 MPs' salaries
	(1) Members of the House of Commons are to receive a salary for the relevant period.
	(2) The salaries are to be paid by the IPSA.
	(3) Salaries are to be paid on a monthly basis in arrears.
	(4) The amounts of the salaries are to be determined by the IPSA (see section 4A).
	(5) "Relevant period", in relation to a person who is a member of the House of Commons, means the period beginning with the day after the day of the poll for the parliamentary election at which the member was elected and ending with-
	(a) if the person is a member immediately before Parliament is dissolved, the day of the poll for the parliamentary general election which follows the dissolution;
	(b) otherwise, the day on which the person ceases to be a member.
	(6) No payment of salary is to be made to a member before the member has made and subscribed the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (or the corresponding affirmation).
	(7) The duty of the IPSA to pay a salary to a member is subject to anything done in relation to the member in the exercise of the disciplinary powers of the House of Commons.
	4A Determination of MPs' salaries
	(1) This section is about determinations under section 4(4).
	(2) A determination may provide for higher salaries to be payable to members while holding an office or position specified for the purposes of this subsection in a resolution of the House of Commons.
	(3) A determination by virtue of subsection (2) may make different provision for different offices or positions or different classes of member (and may include exceptions).
	(4) A determination may include a formula or other mechanism for adjusting salaries from time to time.
	(5) A determination (other than the first determination) may have retrospective effect.
	(6) The IPSA must review the current determination (and make a new determination as appropriate)-
	(a) in the first year of each Parliament;
	(b) at any other time it considers appropriate.
	(7) In reviewing a determination (and before making the first determination) the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the Review Body on Senior Salaries,
	(b) persons appearing to the IPSA to represent persons likely to be affected by the determination or the review,
	(c) the Minister for the Civil Service,
	(d) the Treasury, and
	(e) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.
	(8) After making a determination, the IPSA must publish in a way it considers appropriate-
	(a) the determination, and
	(b) a statement of how it arrived at the determination.
	(9) If the IPSA reviews the current determination but decides not to make a new determination, it must publish in a way it considers appropriate a statement of how it arrived at that decision.
	(10) The IPSA may delegate to the Review Body on Senior Salaries its function of reviewing a determination (but not its function of deciding whether or not to make a new determination)."
	(2) The first determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 does not have to come into effect before 1 April 2012; and section 4A(6)(a) of that Act does not apply in relation to a Parliament that begins before that date.
	(3) Until the first determination under section 4(4) of that Act comes into effect, the amounts of the salaries payable by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority under section 4 of that Act are to be determined in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the House of Commons.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 74
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: MPs' allowances scheme

In section 5 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (MPs' allowances scheme) after subsection (8) insert-
	"(8A) Any duty of the IPSA to pay an allowance to a member is subject to anything done in relation to the member in the exercise of the disciplinary powers of the House of Commons.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 75
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Allowances claims

'(1) Section 6 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (dealing with claims under the MPs' allowances scheme) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
	(3) In subsection (6) for paragraph (b) substitute-
	"(b) provision for deducting amounts within subsection (6A) from allowances payable under the scheme or salaries payable under section 4;
	(c) provision about how such deductions, and deductions under paragraph 5 or 12 of Schedule 4, are to be made."
	(4) After subsection (6) insert-
	"(6A) This subsection applies to amounts which a member (under section 9(8) or otherwise) has agreed to repay, in respect of amounts paid to the member under the MPs' allowances scheme which should not have been allowed."
	(5) After section 6 of that Act insert-
	"6A Review of IPSA's determination
	(1) This section applies if-
	(a) the IPSA determines under section 6(3) that a claim is to be refused or that only part of the amount claimed is to be allowed, and
	(b) the member (after asking the IPSA to reconsider the determination and giving it a reasonable opportunity to do so) asks the Compliance Officer to review the determination (or any altered determination resulting from the IPSA's reconsideration).
	(2) The Compliance Officer must-
	(a) consider whether the determination (or the altered determination) is the determination that should have been made, and
	(b) in light of that consideration, decide whether or not to confirm or alter it.
	(3) The Compliance Officer must give the IPSA a statement of any decision under subsection (2)(b), and may include a statement of the Compliance Officer's findings about the way in which the IPSA has dealt with the claim.
	(4) The IPSA must make any payments or adjustments necessary to give effect to the Compliance Officer's decision; but it must not do so until-
	(a) it is no longer possible for there to be a relevant appeal, and
	(b) all relevant appeals have been withdrawn or determined.
	(5) A relevant appeal is-
	(a) an appeal under subsection (6) brought before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (7), or
	(b) a further appeal in relation to the Compliance Officer's decision which-
	(i) is brought before the end of the usual period for bringing such an appeal, and
	(ii) is an appeal against the determination of an appeal which was itself a relevant appeal.
	(6) The member may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Compliance Officer under subsection (2)(b).
	(7) The appeal must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is sent to the member (unless the Tribunal directs that it may be brought after the end of that period).
	(8) The appeal is by way of a rehearing.
	(9) On an appeal under subsection (6) the Tribunal may-
	(a) allow the appeal in whole or in part, or
	(b) dismiss the appeal.
	(10) If the Tribunal allows the appeal (in whole or in part) it may-
	(a) order the IPSA to make any payments or adjustments necessary to give effect to that decision;
	(b) make any other order it thinks fit.
	(11) If the Tribunal dismisses the appeal it may make any other order it thinks fit.
	(12) The Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA of the Tribunal's decision (and the result of any further appeal).".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 76
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests

'Omit section 8 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13) (MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests) and the italic heading before it.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 77
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Investigations

For section 9 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (investigations) substitute-
	"9 Investigations
	(1) The Compliance Officer may conduct an investigation if the Compliance Officer has reason to believe that a member of the House of Commons may have been paid an amount under the MPs' allowances scheme that should not have been allowed.
	(2) An investigation may be conducted-
	(a) on the Compliance Officer's own initiative,
	(b) at the request of the IPSA,
	(c) at the request of the member, or
	(d) in response to a complaint by an individual.
	(3) For the purposes of the investigation the member and the IPSA-
	(a) must provide the Compliance Officer with any information (including documents) the Compliance Officer reasonably requires, and
	(b) must do so within such period as the Compliance Officer reasonably requires.
	(4) The Compliance Officer must, after giving the member and the IPSA an opportunity to make representations to the Compliance Officer, prepare a statement of the Compliance Officer's provisional findings.
	(5) The Compliance Officer must, after giving the member and the IPSA an opportunity to make representations to the Compliance Officer about the provisional findings, prepare a statement of the Compliance Officer's findings (subject to subsection (7)).
	(6) Provisional findings under subsection (4) and findings under subsection (5) may include-
	(a) a finding that the member failed to comply with subsection (3),
	(b) findings about the role of the IPSA in the matters under investigation.
	(7) If subsection (8) applies, the Compliance Officer need not make a finding under subsection (5) as to whether the member was paid an amount under the MPs' allowances scheme that should not have been allowed.
	(8) This subsection applies if-
	(a) the member accepts a provisional finding that the member was paid an amount under the MPs' allowances scheme that should not have been allowed,
	(b) such other conditions as may be specified by the IPSA are, in the Compliance Officer's view, met in relation to the case, and
	(c) the member agrees to repay to the IPSA, in such manner and within such period as the Compliance Officer considers reasonable, such amount as the Compliance Officer considers reasonable (and makes the repayment accordingly).
	(9) Before specifying conditions under subsection (8)(b) the IPSA must consult the persons listed in section 9A(6).
	(10) References in this section (and section 9A) to a member of the House of Commons include a former member of that House.
	9A Procedures etc
	(1) The IPSA must determine procedures to be followed by the Compliance Officer in relation to investigations under section 9.
	(2) The procedures must in particular include provision about-
	(a) complaints under section 9(2)(d),
	(b) representations under section 9(4),
	(c) representations under section 9(5), and
	(d) the circumstances in which the Compliance Officer must publish the documents listed in subsection (4).
	(3) Provision under subsection (2)(b) must include provision giving the member who is the subject of the investigation-
	(a) an opportunity to be heard in person, and
	(b) an opportunity, where the Compliance Officer considers it appropriate, to call and examine witnesses.
	(4) The documents referred to in subsection (2)(d) are-
	(a) statements of provisional findings under section 9(4),
	(b) statements of findings under section 9(5), and
	(c) agreements under section 9(8).
	(5) The IPSA must also determine procedures to be followed by the Compliance Officer as to the circumstances in which the Compliance Officer must publish-
	(a) statements under section 6A(3), and
	(b) penalty notices under paragraph 6 of Schedule 4.
	(6) Procedures under this section must be fair, and before determining procedures the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,
	(b) the Leader of the House of Commons,
	(c) the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges,
	(d) the Compliance Officer, and
	(e) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 78
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Enforcement

'(1) After section 9A of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 insert-
	"9B Enforcement
	(1) Schedule 4 (which makes provision about the enforcement powers of the Compliance Officer) has effect.
	(2) The Compliance Officer may provide to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards any information connected with an investigation under section 9 or action taken under Schedule 4 which the Compliance Officer considers may be relevant to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards."
	(2) After Schedule 3 to that Act insert the Schedule set out in Schedule [Parliamentary Standards Act 2009: new Schedule 4].'. - (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 79
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Relationships with other bodies etc

'After section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 insert-
	"10A Relationships with other bodies etc
	(1) The IPSA and the Compliance Officer must prepare a joint statement setting out how the IPSA and the Compliance Officer will work with the following-
	(a) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
	(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions,
	(c) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and
	(d) any other person the IPSA and the Compliance Officer consider appropriate.
	(2) Before preparing the statement the IPSA and the Compliance Officer must consult the persons listed in subsection (1).
	(3) Nothing in sections 9 to 9B (or Schedule 4) affects the disciplinary powers of the House of Commons.
	(4) The powers conferred by sections 9 to 9B (and Schedule 4) may be exercised in relation to the conduct of a member of the House of Commons even if-
	(a) the member is or has been the subject of criminal proceedings in relation to that conduct (whether or not convicted of an offence);
	(b) the House of Commons is exercising or has exercised any of its disciplinary powers in relation to that conduct.
	(5) References in subsection (4) to a member of the House of Commons include a former member of that House.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 80
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Further functions of the IPSA and Commissioner

'Omit section 11 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13) (further functions of the IPSA and Commissioner).'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 81
	 — 
	Expiry of provisions of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

'Omit section 15 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13) (expiry of provisions of the Act).'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 82
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Consequential amendments

'Schedule [Parliamentary standards: consequential amendments] (which makes consequential amendments relating to sections [Parliamentary standards: Compliance Officer] to [Expiry of provisions of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009]) has effect.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 83
	 — 
	Resettlement grants for MEPs

'(1) The European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3 (resettlement grants for persons ceasing to be MEPs) for subsections (1) to (3) substitute-
	"(1) The IPSA may make a scheme providing for allowances to be payable to persons to whom this section applies, in connection with their ceasing to be Representatives.
	(2) It may do so only if a scheme under section 5 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (MPs' allowances scheme) makes provision for allowances to be payable in connection with persons ceasing to be Members on a dissolution of Parliament.
	(3) A scheme under this section must make provision which is as nearly equivalent to the provision made by the scheme under section 5 of that Act as the IPSA considers practicable.
	(3A) The IPSA must send to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before both Houses of Parliament-
	(a) any scheme made by it under this section, and
	(b) a statement of the reasons for making the scheme.
	(3B) When the scheme and the statement of reasons have been laid, the IPSA must publish them in a way it considers appropriate.
	(3C) This section applies to a person who is a Representative immediately before the end of a five-year period, and either-
	(a) does not stand for election to the European Parliament at the general election of representatives to the European Parliament held in that period, or
	(b) does so stand at that election (whether for the same or a different electoral region) and is not elected.
	(3D) A scheme made by the IPSA under this section may amend or revoke any previous scheme made by the IPSA under this section."
	(3) Omit section 3A (power to amend section 3).
	(4) In section 7(1)(b) (expenses and receipts) for "grant" substitute "allowance".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 84
	 — 
	Parliamentary standards: Parliamentary pensions

'Schedule [Parliamentary and other pensions] (which makes provision about pensions for members of the House of Commons, ministers and other office-holders) has effect.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 6
	 — 
	'Parliamentary Standards Act 2009:
	 — 
	Compliance Officer

Appointment of Compliance Officer
	1 (1) The Compliance Officer is to be appointed by the IPSA.
	(2) The person to be appointed must be selected by the IPSA on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
	 Terms and conditions: general
	2 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the Compliance Officer holds office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Compliance Officer's appointment.
	(2) Those terms and conditions are to be determined by the IPSA.
	 Term of office
	3 (1) The Compliance Officer is to be appointed for a fixed term not exceeding five years.
	(2) A person who has been appointed as the Compliance Officer may not be appointed again.
	 Resignation and removal from office
	4 (1) A person may resign from the office of Compliance Officer by giving written notice to the IPSA.
	(2) The IPSA may remove a person from the office of Compliance Officer if the person-
	(a) is convicted of an offence (see sub-paragraph (3)),
	(b) becomes bankrupt (see sub-paragraph (4)), or
	(c) is unfit or unable to carry out the functions of the office.
	(3) For the purposes of determining if the person is convicted of an offence-
	(a) it does not matter where the person is convicted, and
	(b) an act punishable under the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence for the purposes of this paragraph (however it is described in that law).
	(4) A person becomes bankrupt if-
	(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a bankruptcy order is made in relation to the person, or
	(b) in Scotland, the person's estate is sequestrated.
	 Remuneration
	5 (1) The terms and conditions on which a person is appointed as the Compliance Officer may provide for the IPSA-
	(a) to pay remuneration and allowances to the person;
	(b) to make provision for a pension in relation to that person.
	(2) The IPSA must make the payment or provision accordingly.
	 Status
	6 (1) The Compliance Officer is not to be regarded-
	(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or
	(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
	(2) The Compliance Officer's property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
	 Funding
	7 (1) The IPSA must provide the Compliance Officer with adequate resources for the Compliance Officer's functions.
	(2) In particular, the IPSA is responsible for providing staff to assist in the carrying out of those functions.
	 Annual report
	8 (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Compliance Officer must-
	(a) prepare a report about the performance of the Compliance Officer's functions during that financial year, and
	(b) send the report to the IPSA.
	(2) The IPSA must send the report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who must lay it before each House of Parliament.
	(3) When the Speaker lays the report, the Compliance Officer must publish it in such manner as the Compliance Officer considers appropriate.
	(4) "Financial year" means-
	(a) the period beginning with the day on which a Compliance Officer is first appointed and ending with the next following 31 March, and
	(b) each successive period of 12 months.
	 Vacancy in office of Compliance Officer
	9 (1) This paragraph applies if the office of Compliance Officer is vacant.
	(2) The IPSA may authorise a member of the IPSA's staff provided under paragraph 7(2) to carry out the functions of the Compliance Officer during the vacancy.
	(3) In relation to a vacancy of more than six months, the functions of the Compliance Officer may not be carried out by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) after the first six months.
	 Disqualification
	10 (1) In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices) at the appropriate place insert-
	"Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority."
	(2) In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices) at the appropriate place insert-
	"Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority."
	 Freedom of information11 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices which are public authorities) at the appropriate place insert-
	"Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority."
	 Public records12 In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) at the appropriate place in Part 2 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 insert-
	"Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority."".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 7
	 — 
	'Parliamentary Standards Act 2009:
	 — 
	Enforcement
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Recovery of overpayments

Power to give repayment direction
	1 (1) This paragraph applies where the Compliance Officer-
	(a) has conducted an investigation in respect of a member of the House of Commons under section 9, and
	(b) has made findings under section 9(5) that the member was paid an amount under the MPs' allowances scheme (the "overpayment") that-
	(i) should not have been allowed, and
	(ii) has not been repaid.
	(2) The Compliance Officer must give the member a direction under this paragraph (a "repayment direction").
	(3) A repayment direction must require the member to pay to the IPSA the amount of the overpayment before the end of the period specified in the direction (the "repayment period").
	(4) A repayment direction may also require the member to do one or both of the following before the end of the repayment period-
	(a) pay to the IPSA interest on the overpayment, at the rate and in relation to the period specified in the direction;
	(b) pay to the IPSA an amount reasonably representing the costs incurred by the IPSA in relation to the overpayment, including the costs of the Compliance Officer in conducting the investigation.
	(5) The Compliance Officer must send a copy of the repayment direction to the IPSA.
	(6) References in this Part of this Schedule to a member of the House of Commons include a former member of that House.
	(7) In this Schedule "overpayment", "repayment direction" and "repayment period" have the meaning given by this paragraph (but in relation to the repayment period, see further paragraph 4(3)).
	 The costs requirement
	2 (1) The IPSA must prepare guidance about the circumstances in which the Compliance Officer should include in a repayment direction a requirement under paragraph 1(4)(b).
	(2) The amount mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(b) is to be calculated by the Compliance Officer in accordance with a scheme prepared by the IPSA for that purpose.
	(3) Before preparing guidance under sub-paragraph (1) or a scheme under sub-paragraph (2) the IPSA must consult the persons listed in section 9A(6).
	 Appeal against repayment direction
	3 (1) A member who has been given a repayment direction under paragraph 1 may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against-
	(a) the Compliance Officer's findings under section 9(5);
	(b) a requirement contained in the repayment direction because of paragraph 1(4).
	(2) An appeal under this paragraph must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the repayment direction is sent to the member (unless the Tribunal directs that it may be brought after the end of that period).
	(3) An appeal under this paragraph is by way of a rehearing.
	(4) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may-
	(a) allow the appeal in whole or in part, or
	(b) dismiss the appeal.
	(5) If the Tribunal allows the appeal (in whole or in part) it may-
	(a) revoke the repayment direction;
	(b) revoke or vary any requirement contained in the repayment direction;
	(c) make any other order it thinks fit.
	(6) If the Tribunal dismisses the appeal it may make any other order it thinks fit.
	(7) The Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA of the Tribunal's decision (and the result of any further appeal).
	 Extension of repayment period
	4 (1) The member may at any time before the end of the repayment period make an application to the Compliance Officer for the Compliance Officer to extend (or further extend) the repayment period.
	(2) The Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA of any decision by the Compliance Officer to extend (or further extend) the repayment period.
	(3) If the Compliance Officer extends (or further extends) the repayment period, references in this Schedule to the repayment period are to that period as extended (or further extended) by the Compliance Officer.
	(4) The member may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the Compliance Officer's decision on an application under this paragraph.
	(5) An appeal under this paragraph must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is sent to the member (unless the Tribunal directs that it may be brought after the end of that period).
	(6) The appeal is by way of a rehearing.
	(7) The Tribunal may-
	(a) allow the appeal in whole or in part, or
	(b) dismiss the appeal.
	(8) If the Tribunal allows the appeal (in whole or in part) it may-
	(a) revoke or vary the Compliance Officer's decision;
	(b) make any other order it thinks fit.
	(9) If the Tribunal dismisses the appeal it may make any other order it thinks fit.
	(10) The Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA of the Tribunal's decision (and the result of any further appeal).
	 Enforcement of repayment direction
	5 (1) This paragraph applies to any amount which a member is required by a repayment direction to pay to the IPSA, but only when-
	(a) it is no longer possible for there to be a relevant appeal, and
	(b) all relevant appeals have been withdrawn or determined.
	(2) A relevant appeal is-
	(a) an appeal under paragraph 3 brought before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 3(2), or
	(b) a further appeal in relation to the repayment direction which-
	(i) is brought before the end of the usual period for bringing such an appeal, and
	(ii) is an appeal against the determination of an appeal which was itself a relevant appeal.
	(3) The IPSA may recover the amount by making deductions from-
	(a) any salary payable to the member under section 4;
	(b) any allowances payable to the member under the MPs' allowances scheme.
	(4) In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the amount is recoverable, if a county court so orders on the application of the Compliance Officer, as if it were payable under an order of that court.
	(5) In Scotland the amount is recoverable as if the repayment direction were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

Part 2
	 — 
	Penalties

Power to impose penalties
	6 (1) If sub-paragraph (3) or (4) applies to a member of the House of Commons, the Compliance Officer may by notice (a "penalty notice") impose a penalty on the member.
	(2) A "penalty" means a sum of money payable by the member to the IPSA.
	(3) This sub-paragraph applies if the Compliance Officer has made a finding under section 9(5) that the member has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with a requirement under section 9(3) (provision of information to Compliance Officer).
	(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the Compliance Officer is satisfied that the member has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with any requirement contained in a repayment direction.
	(5) The Compliance Officer must send a copy of the penalty notice to the IPSA.
	(6) References in this Part of this Schedule to a member of the House of Commons include a former member of that House.
	(7) In this Schedule "penalty notice" and "penalty" have the meanings given by this paragraph.
	 Amount of penalty
	7 (1) The penalty notice must state the amount of the penalty.
	(2) The amount of the penalty must not exceed £1,000.
	(3) The amount in sub-paragraph (2) may be increased (or further increased) by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3) is to be made by statutory instrument.
	(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under sub-paragraph (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	 Information to be contained in notice
	8 (1) The penalty notice must (as well as stating the amount of the penalty) include information as to-
	(a) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
	(b) the period before the end of which the penalty is to be paid,
	(c) how the penalty may be paid,
	(d) the procedure and time limit for appealing,
	(e) the effect of paragraph 12, and
	(f) any other matter specified by the IPSA.
	(2) Before specifying a matter the IPSA must consult the persons listed in section 9A(6).
	 Guidance etc
	9 (1) The IPSA must prepare guidance about-
	(a) the circumstances in which the Compliance Officer should impose a penalty under paragraph 6, and
	(b) how the Compliance Officer should determine the amount of the penalty.
	(2) Before preparing the guidance the IPSA must consult the persons listed in section 9A(6).
	 Review of penalty
	10 (1) The Compliance Officer may at any time review a decision to impose a penalty on a member under paragraph 6.
	(2) Following the review the Compliance Officer may cancel the penalty or reduce the amount of the penalty.
	(3) If the Compliance Office does either of those things, the Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA.
	(4) If the penalty (or part of the penalty) has already been paid the IPSA must repay the member accordingly.
	 Appeal against penalty
	11 (1) A member on whom a penalty has been imposed under paragraph 6 may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
	(2) An appeal under this paragraph must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the penalty notice is sent to the member (unless the Tribunal directs that it may be brought after the end of that period).
	(3) The appeal is by way of a rehearing.
	(4) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may-
	(a) allow the appeal and cancel the penalty,
	(b) allow the appeal and reduce the penalty, or
	(c) dismiss the appeal.
	(5) The Compliance Officer must notify the IPSA of the Tribunal's decision (and the result of any further appeal).
	 Enforcement of penalty
	12 (1) This paragraph applies to the amount of a penalty imposed on a member under paragraph 6, but only when-
	(a) it is no longer possible for there to be a relevant appeal, and
	(b) all relevant appeals have been withdrawn or determined.
	(2) A relevant appeal is-
	(a) an appeal under paragraph 11 brought before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 11(2), or
	(b) a further appeal in relation to the penalty notice which-
	(i) is brought before the end of the usual period for bringing such an appeal, and
	(ii) is an appeal against the determination of an appeal which was itself a relevant appeal.
	(3) The IPSA may recover the amount by making deductions from-
	(a) any salary payable to the member under section 4;
	(b) any allowances payable to the member under the MPs' allowances scheme.
	(4) In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the amount is recoverable, if a county court so orders on the application of the Compliance Officer, as if it were payable under an order of that court.
	(5) In Scotland the amount is recoverable as if the penalty notice were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
	 Payment of penalty into Consolidated Fund13 The IPSA must pay into the Consolidated Fund-
	(a) the amount of any penalty paid to the IPSA, and
	(b) where the IPSA makes a deduction under paragraph 12(3), an amount corresponding to the amount of the deduction.".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 8
	 — 
	'Parliamentary standards: consequential amendments

1 The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13) is amended as follows.2 In section 2(2) (effect of Act on House of Lords)-
	(a) omit paragraph (a),
	(b) omit "and" at the end of paragraph (b),
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "paragraphs 4(2) and 8(1)" substitute "paragraph 8(2)", and
	(d) after that paragraph insert ", and
	(d) paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 4."
	3 In section 5(8) (allowances) for the words from "and" to the end substitute "and in relation to any such allowances, references in this Act to a member of the House of Commons include a former member of that House."
	4 (1) Section 12 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)-
	(a) for ""the Commissioner"" substitute ""the Compliance Officer"", and
	(b) omit the definition of "the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests".
	(3) In subsection (2)-
	(a) after "committee" (in each place) insert "or officer", and
	(b) in paragraph (a) for "its" substitute "the".
	5 (1) Section 13 (transitional provision) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit subsection (2)(b) and (c).
	(3) In subsection (4) and (6)(c) for "Commissioner" substitute "Compliance Officer".
	6 In section 14 (commencement) omit subsection (2)(d).
	7 (1) Schedule 1 (the IPSA) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit paragraph 10 and the heading above it.
	(3) In paragraph 18(1)-
	(a) for paragraph (a) substitute-
	"(a) section 4 (MPs' salaries), so far as relating to the payment (but not the determination) of salaries,",
	(b) in paragraph (c), after "claims)" insert "(except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below)", and
	(c) omit the words following paragraph (c).
	(4) In paragraph 18(2)-
	(a) before paragraph (a) insert-
	"(za) sections 4 and 4A (MPs' salaries) (except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above),",
	(b) after paragraph (a) insert-
	"(aa) section 6(10) (determining procedures for publication of allowances claims),",
	(c) omit paragraph (b) (and the "and" following it), and
	(d) for paragraph (c) substitute-
	"(c) section 9(8)(b) and (9) (determining conditions),
	(d) section 9A (determining procedures for investigations etc),
	(e) paragraphs 1, 2(2), 4(2) and 9(2) of Schedule 2 (appointment and removal of Compliance Officer etc), and
	(f) paragraphs 2, 8 and 9 of Schedule 4 (scheme, guidance etc for Compliance Officer)."
	(5) In paragraph 22(8) for "Any repayments" substitute "Any payments received by the IPSA as a result of a repayment direction under Schedule 4, and any repayments otherwise".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 9
	 — 
	'Parliamentary and other pensions
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Parliamentary and other pensions

The Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
	 Continuance of Fund
	1 (1) There is to continue to be a fund known as the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund ("the Fund").
	(2) The persons who are the trustees of the Fund immediately before this paragraph comes into force are to continue as the trustees of the Fund (subject to provision made by or under this Schedule).
	(3) The IPSA may, after consulting the Minister for the Civil Service-
	(a) remove a trustee of the Fund;
	(b) fill any vacancy in the trustees;
	(c) appoint additional trustees.
	(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) is subject to any provision in a scheme under paragraph 3.
	 Powers of trustees
	2 (1) The trustees of the Fund may invest the assets of the Fund, whether at the time in a state of investment or not, in any investment whatever and may also from time to time vary any such investments.
	(2) The trustees of the Fund may settle or compromise any claim or dispute relating to the Fund, but-
	(a) so far as the claim or dispute relates to a scheme under paragraph 3 or 7, they may do so only with the consent of the IPSA, and
	(b) so far as the claim or dispute relates to a scheme under paragraph 11, they may do so only with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
	(3) The IPSA must consult the Minister for the Civil Service before giving its consent to the settlement or compromise of a claim or dispute relating to a 30 scheme under paragraph 3.
	(4) Section 35(1) to (4) of the Pensions Act 1995 (pension scheme trustees must prepare statement of investment principles) applies to the trustees of the Fund despite any provision in regulations under section 35 of that Act which would (apart from this sub-paragraph) prevent it applying.
	(5) Any provision in regulations under that section which would require the trustees of the Fund to consult the employer applies as if it required them to consult the IPSA and the Minister for the Civil Service.
	 Administration scheme
	3 (1) The IPSA may make a scheme containing provision about-
	(a) the administration of the Fund,
	(b) the management of the Fund's assets,
	(c) the number, qualification and proceedings of the trustees of the Fund, and
	(d) the application of the Fund's assets in connection with the matters in paragraphs (a) to (c).
	(2) A scheme under this paragraph may in particular-
	(a) include any or all of the provisions specified in paragraphs 26 to 28,
	(b) make different provision in relation to different cases, circumstances or persons,
	(c) make such incidental, consequential and transitional provision (other than provision modifying an enactment or subordinate legislation) as the IPSA considers appropriate.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(c) the reference to subordinate legislation does not include a scheme under this paragraph.
	(4) No provision of a scheme under this paragraph is to be construed as restricting the powers of the trustees under paragraph 2(1).
	 Procedure for administration scheme
	4 (1) Before making a scheme under paragraph 3 the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the Treasury,
	(b) the Minister for the Civil Service,
	(c) the trustees of the Fund,
	(d) persons the IPSA considers to represent those likely to be affected by the scheme, and
	(e) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.
	(2) The IPSA must send to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before the House of Commons-
	(a) any representations made to it by the trustees of the Fund in response to consultation under this paragraph,
	(b) any scheme made by it under paragraph 3, and
	(c) a statement of the reasons for making the scheme.
	(3) When the scheme and the statement of reasons have been laid, the IPSA must publish them in a way it considers appropriate.
	 Exchequer contribution to Fund
	5 (1) In respect of each financial year an Exchequer contribution is to be paid into the Fund out of money provided by Parliament.
	(2) Subject to any provision made by the IPSA under paragraph 6, the amount of the contribution for any financial year is to be calculated in accordance with recommendations for that year contained in a report made by the Government Actuary under this paragraph.
	(3) The Government Actuary must make a report under this paragraph as soon as practicable after the beginning of-
	(a) the period of three years beginning with the relevant date, and
	(b) each succeeding period of three years.
	(4) The "relevant date" means the date immediately following the end of the three year period which is current for the purposes of section 3 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 when this paragraph comes into force.
	(5) The report is to be made to-
	(a) the trustees of the Fund,
	(b) the IPSA,
	(c) the Minister for the Civil Service, and
	(d) the Treasury.
	(6) The report must-
	(a) report on the general financial position of the Fund at the beginning of the period of three years in which the report is made, and
	(b) make a recommendation as to the rate at which (subject to any subsequent report under this paragraph) Exchequer contributions should be paid into the Fund in respect of any financial year beginning after the report is made.
	(7) The rate is to be expressed by reference to such matters as the Government Actuary considers appropriate.
	(8) A copy of every report made by the Government Actuary under this paragraph is to be laid before the House of Commons.
	 Power to determine Exchequer contribution
	6 (1) The IPSA may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service, make provision for determining the Exchequer contribution in respect of any financial year.
	(2) The "Exchequer contribution" means the amount to be paid into the Fund under paragraph 5.
	(3) Before making provision under this paragraph the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the trustees of the Fund, and
	(b) persons appearing to the IPSA to represent persons likely to be affected by the provision.
	(4) The IPSA must send to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before the House of Commons-
	(a) any representations made by the trustees of the Fund in response to consultation under this paragraph,
	(b) any provision made by the IPSA under this paragraph, and
	(c) a statement of the reasons for making the provision.
	(5) When the provision and the statement of reasons have been laid, the IPSA must publish them in a way it considers appropriate.
	(6) Provision under this section may-
	(a) apply to a financial year which has already ended or which has begun before the making of the provision, and
	(b) make such incidental, consequential and transitional provision (other than provision modifying an enactment or subordinate legislation) as the IPSA considers appropriate.
	MPs' pension scheme
	 MPs' pension scheme
	7 (1) The IPSA may make a scheme containing provision about the application of the assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service as a member of the House of Commons, in respect of that service.
	(2) A scheme under this paragraph may not provide for the application of any of the assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service as Lord Chancellor.
	(3) A scheme under this paragraph may not provide for the application of any of the assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions for or in respect of a person ("P") with service as-
	(a) Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, or
	(b) Speaker of the House of Commons.
	(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if P elects, in accordance with provision made by the scheme, to contribute to the Fund out of P's salary as a member of the House of Commons while holding the office of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury or Speaker of the House of Commons.
	(5) The provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) may not provide for a pension payable under the scheme for or in respect of P to be calculated by reference to service as a member of the House of Commons before 28 February 1991.
	 Meaning of "service as a member of the House of Commons"
	8 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule a person is to be treated as a member of the House of Commons at any time if at that time a salary is or was payable to the person under-
	(a) section 4 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, or
	(b) in relation to a time before that section was in force, the resolutions of
	the House of Commons then in force relating to the remuneration of its members.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule service as a member of the House of Commons includes service as the holder of a qualifying office or position.
	(3) In relation to a time when a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 is in effect a "qualifying office or position" means an office or position in respect of which, because of section 4A(2) of that Act, a higher salary is payable than the salary payable to members of the House of Commons generally.
	(4) In relation to a time before the first determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 comes into effect a "qualifying office or position" means-
	(a) the office of Chairman of Ways and Means and the office of Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means,
	(b) an office or position in respect of which, under the resolutions of the House of Commons then in force relating to the remuneration of its members, a higher salary was payable than the salary payable to members of the House of Commons generally.
	 MPs' pension scheme: further provision
	9 (1) A scheme under paragraph 7 may in particular-
	(a) include any or all of the provisions specified in paragraphs 19 to 27, except for the provision specified in paragraph 24(2),
	(b) make provision which has effect from a date earlier than the date the scheme is made,
	(c) make provision in relation to service before the passing of this Act,
	(d) make different provision in relation to different cases, circumstances or persons, and
	(e) make such incidental, consequential and transitional provision (other than provision modifying an enactment or subordinate legislation) as the IPSA considers appropriate.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(e) the reference to subordinate legislation does not include a scheme under paragraph 7.
	 Procedure for MPs' pension scheme
	10 (1) Before making a scheme under paragraph 7 the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the Treasury,
	(b) the Minister for the Civil Service,
	(c) the trustees of the Fund,
	(d) persons the IPSA considers to represent those likely to be affected by the scheme,
	(e) the Government Actuary,
	(f) the Review Body on Senior Salaries, and
	(g) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.
	(2) The IPSA must send to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before the House of Commons-
	(a) any representations made to it by the trustees of the Fund in response
	to consultation under this paragraph,
	(b) any scheme made by it under paragraph 7, and
	(c) a statement of the reasons for making the scheme.
	(3) When the scheme and the statement of reasons have been laid, the IPSA must publish them in a way it considers appropriate.
	(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(f) to the Review Body on Senior Salaries-
	(a) if the name of the body is changed, is to be treated as a reference to the body by its new name, and
	(b) if the functions of the body (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different body, is to be treated as a reference to the body by which those functions are exercisable.
	(5) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (4) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
	Ministers' etc pension scheme
	11 (1) The Minister for the Civil Service may make a scheme containing provision about the application of the assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service to which this paragraph applies, in respect of that service.
	(2) This paragraph applies to service as-
	(a) the holder of an office specified in Parts 1 to 4 of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (ministerial offices),
	(b) the holder of an office specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (Opposition leaders and whips),
	(c) Speaker of the House of Lords,
	(d) Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords,
	(e) Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords.
	(3) A scheme under this paragraph may not provide for the application of any of the assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions for or in respect of a person with service as-
	(a) Lord Chancellor,
	(b) Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, or
	(c) Speaker of the House of Commons.
	 Ministers' etc pension scheme: further provision
	12 (1) A scheme under paragraph 11 may in particular-
	(a) include any or all of the provisions specified in paragraphs 19 to 27 and 29,
	(b) make provision which has effect from a date earlier than the date the scheme is made,
	(c) make provision in relation to service before the passing of this Act (including, in relation to service within paragraph 11(2)(a) or (b), service before the passing of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975),
	(d) make different provision in relation to different cases, circumstances or persons, and
	(e) make such incidental, consequential and transitional provision (other than provision modifying an enactment or subordinate legislation) as the Minister considers appropriate.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(e) the reference to subordinate legislation does not include a scheme under paragraph 11.
	 Procedure for Ministers' etc pension scheme
	13 (1) Before making a scheme under paragraph 11 the Minister for the Civil Service must consult-
	(a) the IPSA,
	(b) the Government Actuary,
	(c) the trustees of the Fund, and
	(d) any other person the Minister considers appropriate.
	(2) The Minister for the Civil Service must lay before the House of Commons-
	(a) any representations made to the Minister by the trustees of the Fund in response to consultation under this paragraph,
	(b) any scheme made by the Minister under paragraph 11, and
	(c) a statement of the reasons for making the scheme.
	(3) When the scheme and the statement of reasons have been laid, the Minister must publish them in a way the Minister considers appropriate.
	Supplementary provision
	 Protection of accrued rights
	14 (1) This paragraph applies where-
	(a) the IPSA makes a scheme under paragraph 7, or
	(b) the Minister for the Civil Service makes a scheme under paragraph 11,
	(the "new scheme").
	(2) The new scheme must not make any provision in relation to an accrued right which puts a person in a worse position than the person would have been in apart from the provision.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if the person making the new scheme is satisfied that-
	(a) the person ("P") in respect of whose service the right has accrued (or will have accrued by the time the provision comes into force) is in service when the new scheme is made, or
	(b) the new scheme gives P (or a person acting on P's behalf) the opportunity to opt for the accrued right to remain unaffected by the provision.
	(4) If P has died, the references in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to P are to be read as references to the persons who because of the accrued right are entitled, or may become entitled, to a pension or to the benefit of any pension.
	(5) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) "service" means-
	(a) where the new scheme is a scheme under paragraph 7, service as a member of the House of Commons, and
	(b) where the new scheme is a scheme under paragraph 11, service to which that paragraph applies.
	 Meaning of "accrued right"
	15 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of paragraph 14.
	(2) "Accrued right", in relation to the new scheme, means so much of any right or entitlement to or in respect of a pension payable out of the Fund as-
	(a) has accrued under the existing scheme in respect of service which was before the making of the new scheme, or
	(b) by the time the new scheme comes into force, will have accrued under the existing scheme in respect of service of a person within sub-paragraph (3).
	(3) A person is within this sub-paragraph if the person's service includes a period of service before the making of the new scheme.
	(4) Where the new scheme is a scheme under paragraph 7, in this paragraph-
	(a) "existing scheme" means the schemes under paragraph 7 in force, or made but not yet in force, when the new scheme is made, and
	(b) "service" means service as a member of the House of Commons.
	(5) Where the new scheme is a scheme under paragraph 11, in this paragraph-
	(a) the "existing scheme" means the schemes under paragraph 11 in force, or made but not yet in force, when the new scheme is made, and
	(b) "service" means service to which that paragraph applies.
	(6) In this paragraph references to a right or entitlement include a future or contingent right or entitlement.
	 Power to make consequential amendments
	16 (1) The Minister for the Civil Service may by order make such modifications of any enactment or subordinate legislation (whenever passed or made) as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of any provision of a scheme made by the IPSA or the Minister for the Civil Service under this Part of this Schedule.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) the reference to subordinate legislation does not include a scheme made by the IPSA or the Minister for the Civil Service under this Part of this Schedule.
	(3) An order under this paragraph is to be made by statutory instrument.
	(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	 Interpretation etc
	17 (1) A scheme made by the IPSA under paragraph 3 or 7 may amend or revoke any previous scheme made by the IPSA under that paragraph.
	(2) A scheme made by the Minister for the Civil Service under paragraph 11 may amend or revoke any previous scheme made by the Minister under that paragraph.
	(3) In this Part of this Schedule-
	"the Fund" means the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund;
	"the IPSA" means the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority;
	"modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions (and related expressions are to be read accordingly);
	"pension" includes gratuity;
	"subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.

Part 2
	 — 
	Provision which may be included in schemes

Introductory
	18 (1) In this Part of this Schedule "relevant service"-
	(a) for the purposes of paragraph 9(1)(a), means service as a member of
	the House of Commons, and
	(b) for the purposes of paragraph 12(1)(a), means service to which
	paragraph 11 applies.
	(2) Expressions defined in relation to Part 1 of this Schedule have the same meaning in this Part of this Schedule as in that Part.
	 Contributions
	19 Provision authorising or requiring contributions and other sums to be paid into the Fund by or on behalf of persons in relevant service, including provision for those contributions and sums to be paid-
	(a) by deductions from salary;
	(b) in the case of a person who does not draw a salary, out of money provided by Parliament.
	 Conditions etc
	20 Provision as to-
	(a) the circumstances in which there is to be entitlement to a pension payable out of the Fund;
	(b) the conditions of any such entitlement;
	(c) the persons to or for the benefit of whom such a pension is payable;
	(d) the calculation of the amount of any such pension;
	(e) the payment or commutation of any such pension.
	 Pensions not paid out of Fund
	21 (1) Provision for the application of assets of the Fund in or towards the provision of pensions to be paid otherwise than out of the Fund.
	(2) In connection with such provision, provision for the payment into the Fund out of money provided by Parliament of sums in addition to those paid into the Fund under paragraph 5.
	 Transfer values
	22 (1) Provision for the payment and receipt of transfer values by the trustees of the Fund (including provision for the payment of such values into the Consolidated Fund).
	(2) Provision for the transfer and receipt by the trustees of the Fund of funds or policies of insurance in lieu of transfer values.
	 Service
	23 Provision authorising service other than relevant service to be taken into account, in addition to relevant service, for the purposes of any provision of the scheme.
	 Repayments
	24 (1) Provision as to the circumstances and manner in which amounts equal to some or all of the contributions and other sums paid by or on behalf of a person into the Fund may be repaid or paid to that person.
	(2) Provision as to the circumstances and manner in which any such amounts are to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of transfer values paid into that Fund.
	(3) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) may include provision as to whether any repayment or payment made under that provision is to be made with or without interest.
	 Assignment etc.
	25 Provision rendering void-
	(a) any assignment (or, in Scotland, assignation) of a pension which is payable or may become payable out of the Fund;
	(b) any charge on such a pension;
	(c) any agreement to assign or charge such a pension.
	 Functions
	26 Provision conferring functions under the scheme on persons specified in or determined under the scheme.
	 Approvals
	27 Provision making the approval, satisfaction or opinion of persons on whom functions are conferred by or under the scheme material for the purposes of any provision of the scheme.
	 Payments without probate
	28 Provision authorising (in relation to such cases, circumstances or persons as may be specified in or determined under the scheme) any sum due to be paid out of the Fund in respect of a person who has died to be paid without probate or other proof of title.
	 Application of other provisions
	29 Provision which (with or without modifications) applies in relation to a pension payable out of the Fund so much of any enactment or subordinate legislation (whenever passed or made) as relates to another pension, being a pension payable out of money provided by Parliament.

Part 3
	 — 
	Amendments, transitional provision etc

Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c. 56)
	30 (1) Part 1 of Schedule 2 is amended as follows.
	(2) For paragraph 3A substitute-
	"3A A pension which, under a scheme under paragraph 7 or 11 of Schedule [Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, is payable out of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund."
	(3) In paragraph 3B for "an order" substitute "a scheme".
	 Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 (c. 48)
	31 (1) Section 27 (pensions for dependants of Prime Minister or Speaker) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)-
	(a) in paragraph (a) for the words from "in respect" to the end substitute "under a scheme made by the Minister for the Civil Service under paragraph 11 of Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to receive a pension payable out of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in respect of service to which that paragraph applies", and
	(b) in paragraph (c) for "Treasury" substitute "Minister for the Civil Service".
	(3) In subsection (2)-
	(a) for "the Parliamentary pension scheme" substitute "a scheme made by the Minister for the Civil Service under paragraph 11 of Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010",
	(b) in paragraph (a) for "as a Member of the House of Commons"
	substitute "to which that paragraph applies", and
	(c) in paragraph (b), for "Leader of the House of Commons" substitute "Minister for the Civil Service".
	(4) In subsection (5), omit from ""the Leader" to the end.
	32 (1) The amendments made by paragraph 31 do not apply in relation to a person who, having held office as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury or Speaker of the House of Commons, died before that paragraph comes into force.
	(2) In relation to such a person section 27 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972, and the provisions designated under that section, have effect as if this Act had not been passed.
	 European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (c. 50)
	33 (1) Section 4 (pensions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)-
	(a) for "Leader of the House of Commons may by order make" substitute "IPSA may make a scheme containing", and
	(b) for "by the order" substitute "in the scheme".
	(3) In subsection (2)-
	(a) for "orders" substitute "a scheme", and
	(b) for "order" substitute "scheme".
	(4) In subsection (3)-
	(a) for "an order" substitute "a scheme", and
	(b) in paragraphs (d) and (g) for "order" substitute "scheme".
	(5) In subsection (3A), for "An order" substitute "A scheme".
	(6) For subsection (4) substitute-
	"(4) Before making a scheme under this section the IPSA must consult-
	(a) the Treasury,
	(b) the Minister for the Civil Service,
	(c) persons it considers to represent those likely to be affected by the scheme,
	(d) the Government Actuary, and
	(e) any other person it considers appropriate.
	(4A) The IPSA must send to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before both Houses of Parliament-
	(a) any scheme made by it under this section, and
	(b) a statement of the reasons for making the scheme.
	(4B) When the scheme and the statement of reasons have been laid, the IPSA must publish them in a way it considers appropriate."
	(7) For subsection (5) substitute-
	"(5) The IPSA must from time to time prepare a report on the operation of any provisions in force under this section, and send it to the Speaker of the House of Commons for laying before both Houses of Parliament."
	(8) After subsection (7) insert-
	"(8) A scheme made by the IPSA under this section may amend or revoke any previous scheme made by the IPSA under this section."
	34 (1) Section 6 (block transfer into another pension scheme) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)-
	(a) for "Leader of the House of Commons may by order" substitute "IPSA may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service", and
	(b) for "the order" substitute "the direction".
	(3) In subsection (2)-
	(a) for "making an order" substitute "giving a direction",
	(b) for "Leader of the House of Commons" substitute "IPSA",
	(c) for "he" (in both places) substitute "it",
	(d) for "make such an order" substitute "give such a direction", and
	(e) for "the order" substitute "the direction".
	(4) In subsection (4), in the definition of "the relevant pension provisions"-
	(a) for "an order" substitute "a direction",
	(b) for "orders" substitute "a scheme", and
	(c) for "order is made" substitute "direction is given".
	35 (1) Section 7 (expenses and receipts) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(c) (expenses and receipts)-
	(a) for "any order" substitute "a scheme", and
	(b) omit the words from "or of any" to the end.
	(3) In subsection (1)(d) for "an order" substitute "a direction".
	36 (1) Section 8 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) (interpretation)-
	(a) after the definition of "electoral region" insert-
	"the IPSA" means the Independent Parliamentary Standards
	Authority;", and
	(b) omit the definition of "the Leader of the House of Commons".
	(3) Omit subsection (2).
	 House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 (c. 7)
	37 In section 1 (entitlement to payments out of House of Commons Members' Fund)-
	(a) in subsection (5)(b) for "paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of section 2(2) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987" substitute "subsection (5A)", and
	(b) after subsection (5) insert-
	"(5A)
	The offices are-
	(a) the offices mentioned in paragraph 11(2)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010;
	(b) the offices of Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means."
	 Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 (c. 45)
	38 Omit-
	(a) section 1,
	(b) section 2(1) to (8) and (10),
	(c) section 3, and
	(d) Schedule 1.
	39 (1) This paragraph applies if an order under section 61 or 62 of this Act provides that (despite the repeals in paragraph 38) any of the existing regulations are to have effect as if contained in a scheme under paragraph 3, 7 or 11.
	(2) The order may provide for any provision of the existing regulations which-
	(a) relates to one or more of the matters listed in paragraph 3(1), but
	(b) could not be contained in a scheme under paragraph 3, to have effect as if contained in a scheme under that paragraph.
	(3) If it does so a scheme under paragraph 3 may-
	(a) revoke the provision;
	(b) amend it so that it makes provision which may be contained in a scheme under that paragraph (but not otherwise amend it).
	(4) The order may provide for any provision of the existing regulations which-
	(a) relates to service as a member of the House of Commons, but
	(b) could not be contained in a scheme under paragraph 7, to have effect as if contained in a scheme under that paragraph.
	(5) If it does so a scheme under paragraph 7 may-
	(a) revoke the provision;
	(b) amend it so that it makes provision which may be contained in a scheme under that paragraph (but not otherwise amend it).
	(6) The order may provide for any provision of the existing regulations which-
	(a) relates to service to which paragraph 11 applies, but
	(b) could not be contained in a scheme under that paragraph, to have effect as if contained in a scheme under that paragraph.
	(7) If it does so a scheme under paragraph 11 may-
	(a) revoke the provision;
	(b) amend it so that it makes provision which may be contained in a scheme under that paragraph (but not otherwise amend it).
	(8) "The existing regulations" means regulations under section 2 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.
	 Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 (c. 5)
	40 Omit section 6.
	 Pensions Act 2004 (c. 35)
	41 In section 249A(3)(c) (schemes to which section 249A does not apply) for "section 2 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 (c. 45)" substitute "paragraph 3, 7 or 11 of Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010".
	 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (c. 13)
	42 (1) In section 5(9) (MPs' allowances scheme does not affect pensions) for "the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 (c. 45)" substitute "Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010".
	(2) In paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 (IPSA's administration and regulation functions), after sub-paragraph (2) insert-
	"(3) The IPSA's functions under the following provisions are also regulation functions-
	(a) sections 3, 4 and 6 of the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (but not any function relating to the administration of a scheme under section 3 or 4);
	(b) paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 of Schedule [ Parliamentary and other pensions] to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (but not any function relating to the administration of a scheme under paragraph 3 or 7).".'.-[ Mr. Straw.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 85
	 — 
	Tax status of MPs and members of the House of Lords

'(1) Subsection (2) applies if a person is for any part of a tax year-
	(a) a member of the House of Commons, or
	(b) a member of the House of Lords.
	(2) The person is to be treated for the purposes of the taxes listed in subsection (3) as resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for the whole of that tax year.
	(3) The taxes are-
	(a) income tax,
	(b) capital gains tax, and
	(c) inheritance tax.
	(4) For the purposes of this section a person-
	(a) becomes a member of the House of Commons when (having been elected to that House) the person makes and subscribes the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (c. 19) (or the corresponding affirmation), and
	(b) ceases to be a member of that House when-
	(i) the Parliament to which the person was elected is dissolved, or
	(ii) the person's seat is otherwise vacated.
	(5) For the purposes of this section and section [Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision] a person is a member of the House of Lords if the person is entitled to receive writs of summons to attend that House.
	(6) In relation to a member of the House of Lords, in subsection (1) the reference to any part of a tax year excludes any part of the year during which-
	(a) section 137(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) applies to the member, or
	(b) the member is entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of being an archbishop or bishop.
	(7) This section applies in relation to the tax year 2010-11 and subsequent tax years.
	(8) But in applying this section to the tax year 2010-11-
	(a) if the Parliament in which this Act is passed is dissolved in that tax year, ignore a person's membership of the House of Commons in that Parliament, and
	(b) in any event, ignore a person's membership of the House of Lords at any time before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which section [Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision] comes into force.
	(9) In this section, in relation to inheritance tax-
	(a) "tax year" means a year beginning on 6 April and ending on the following 5 April, and
	(b) "the tax year 2010-11" means the tax year beginning on 6 April 2010.
	(10) In determining for the purposes of this section and section [Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision] whether a person is entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, ignore-
	(a) section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 (c. 23);
	(b) sections 426A and 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45);
	(c) any suspension resolution passed in relation to the person under section 31.'.- (Mr. Wills.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Wills: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 86- Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision.
	New clause 52- Disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the House of Lords on grounds of residence and domicile for taxation purposes -
	'(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and House of Lords if he does not comply with the conditions set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are-
	(a) that he was resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 14 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (c. 3) for the tax year during which he was elected or appointed and for each subsequent tax year; and
	(b) in the case of a non-domiciled United Kingdom resident, that he has not made a claim to be taxed on the remittance basis in respect of the tax year in which he was first elected or appointed, nor in any of the previous 10 tax years, nor in any subsequent tax year during which he was a Member of Parliament.
	(3) Members of Parliament must submit a declaration to the relevant authority indicating that they are in compliance with the conditions set out in subsection (2).
	(4) A declaration under subsection (3) must be submitted to the relevant authority-
	(a) within 30 days of the date of election or appointment;
	(b) in the case of existing members of the House of Commons, within 30 days of the date on which this Act comes into force, and within 30 days of their election to any subsequent Parliament; or
	(c) in the case of existing members of the House of Lords, within 30 days of the date on which this Act comes into force, and subsequently between 1 February and 5 April in each calendar year.
	(5) Declarations must be made in accordance with arrangements made by the relevant authorities.
	(6) Members of Parliament who do not submit a declaration in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) shall be liable to disqualification under this section.
	(7) In sections 6 and 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24), references to that Act shall be construed as including references to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
	(8) In this section-
	"appointed" means to have received a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords;
	"Member of Parliament" means a member of the House of Commons or a member of the House of Lords;
	"relevant authority" means-in the case of the House of Commons, the Speaker, and in the case of the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker.'.
	New clause 53- Members of House of Commons and House of Lords to be treated as domiciled in United Kingdom (No. 2) -
	'Any person who-
	(a) is (or is elected to serve as) a member of the House of Commons, or
	(b) when this section comes into force is a member of the House of Lords, or
	(c) subsequently becomes a member of the House of Lords,
	is to be treated by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as being domiciled, resident and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and will be liable to pay United Kingdom taxes accordingly in any relevant tax accounting year in which he holds membership of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.'.
	New clause 54- Deemed resignation and suspension on grounds of tax status -
	'(1) A member of the House of Lords is deemed to have resigned under section 32 if, after the commencement of this section, he makes a declaration to the effect that-
	(a) he is not resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of income tax, or
	(b) in the previous 12 months he has made a claim to be taxed on the remittance basis as a non-domiciled resident.
	(2) The date of a resignation under subsection (1) is the day the declaration is made.
	(3) A resignation under this section comes into effect regardless of whether it would be a valid resignation under section 32.
	(4) Every member of the House of Lords must make a declaration at least once every calendar year about his residence and domicile for tax purposes.
	(5) A declaration under subsection (4) must state the member's belief about his residence for tax purposes and about whether he has made a claim to be taxed on the remittance basis as a non-domiciled resident.
	(6) A copy of every declaration made under subsection (4) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
	(7) A member of the House of Lords who fails to make a declaration under subsections (4) and (5) by the last day of December of any year is suspended from the House of Lords from the following day as if a resolution of suspension had been passed under section 31, such suspension to last until such time as the member makes a declaration complying with subsection (5).
	(8) A member of the House of Lords who dishonestly makes a false declaration under this section is guilty of an offence.
	(9) Anyone found guilty of an offence under subsection (8)-
	(a) shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Lords, and
	(b) shall be liable to imprisonment of up to five years and to an unlimited fine.
	(10) The offence created by subsection (8) shall be triable on indictment only.'.
	New clause 55- Tax status of members of the House of Commons -
	'(1) Every member of the House of Commons must at least once every calendar year make a declaration about his residence and domicile for tax purposes, which declaration must state the member's belief about his residence for income tax purposes and his belief about whether in the previous 12 months he has made a claim to be taxed on the remittance basis as a non-domiciled resident.
	(2) A copy of every declaration made under subsection (1) shall be deposited with the Speaker.
	(3) A member of the House of Commons who makes a declaration to the effect that he believes that he is not resident in the United Kingdom for income tax purposes or that in the previous 12 months he has made a claim to be taxed on the remittance basis as a non-domiciled resident shall be disqualified from membership of the House.
	(4) A member who has failed to make a declaration complying with subsection (1) by the last day of December in any year shall be treated as suspended from the service of the House until he makes a declaration complying with subsection (1).
	(5) A member of the House of Commons who dishonestly makes a false declaration under this section is guilty of an offence.
	(6) Anyone found guilty of an offence under subsection (5)-
	(a) shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons, and
	(b) shall be liable to imprisonment of up to five years and to an unlimited fine.
	(7) The offence created by subsection (5) shall be triable on indictment only.'.
	Government amendments 132 and 134.

Michael Wills: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. The Government have made it clear on several occasions that they support the principle that parliamentarians should pay taxes in the United Kingdom. All parties now seem to agree, and the proposed changes from the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and some of my hon. Friends suggest different ways of addressing this very issue.
	The Government's group of proposed changes would deem Members of this House and Members of the other place resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. As a result, they would be liable to pay those taxes on their worldwide income, capital gains and assets in exactly the same way as the vast majority of taxpayers. Moreover, they would be unable to access the remittance basis of taxation. In lay terms, they would not be able to avoid tax as a non-dom while a Member of this Parliament.
	The vast majority of parliamentarians do pay full UK taxes, but there has been widespread popular concern about the exceptions to that rule. The net result of these proposed changes would mean that MPs and peers were liable to pay the same taxes as the vast majority of UK taxpayers, regardless of their actual common law status in the UK. The new clauses will come into force from Royal Assent, so they might apply to the next Parliament.
	New clause 85 provides that all MPs will be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled from taking up their seat in this House upon taking the oath. Therefore, only those who were full UK taxpayers may sit and vote in this House. In the other place, all those appointed after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be aware that if they accepted a life peerage and a seat in the other place, they would be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled for tax purposes.
	It is not possible to change a person's resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled tax status part way through a tax year, so in both instances MPs and peers would be deemed to be resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled for the whole of any tax year in which they were Members. That means that they would be deemed as such from the start of the tax year in which they took up their seat and to the end of the tax year in which they stood down.
	We acknowledge that the situation is different for incumbent Members of the House of Lords, who will be unable to resign from the House until the provisions in part 3 of the Bill come into force. As such, new clause 86 provides for a transitional period of three months during which incumbent peers can give notice in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments that they are not willing to be subject to the deeming provision, and from that point their membership of the other place would cease.
	Peers who remain Members of the House at the end of the three-month transitional period would automatically be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled for tax purposes.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister is aware that we have signed up to the proposed changes, but it would be helpful to clarify the point about the ability of a Member of the other place-this does not really apply to the House of Commons-to get their affairs in order in sufficient time both to comply with the three-month rule and not to have an issue of retrospectivity over their tax. Will he explain how the marriage between the three months and the start of the tax year will work in practice?

Michael Wills: In general, the way in which it will work is quite clear. There will be a three-month period after Royal Assent, and thereafter there will be a choice, which peers will make. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the tax affairs of every Member of the other place, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to give me the details of any instances that he thinks might be caught up in that interaction, I should be very happy to address them and seek specialist advice on them.

Dominic Grieve: As matters stand, I understand that one does not even have to be a national of this country to be a Member of the House of Lords; one can be a Member as a Commonwealth citizen. On that basis, some Members of the House of Lords might even originate from Commonwealth countries and have never been UK domiciled. Although this is a hypothetical matter, I can think of a number of Government appointees who might fall into that category. I want to understand how they will put their affairs in order if they wish to opt to remain in the House of Lords: what procedural mechanism will be required for that?

Michael Wills: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his name to these new clauses, and as such I would have hoped that he understood the purpose of a deeming mechanism. He keeps referring to people putting their affairs in order, but it is not clear whether he means their financial affairs or their status as a non-domicile, or in any other way. We have chosen this mechanism of deeming someone to be ordinarily resident and domiciled for a very particular reason. There may be a perfectly good, entirely benign reason, which has nothing to do with their tax affairs, why someone might wish not to change their status in the way that he mentions. That is perfectly fine, but what is not fine is that Members of this Parliament should not be placed in exactly the same position as the vast majority of British citizens for whom this place legislates. If people are prepared to pay tax in this country, like the vast majority of British citizens, that is fine, and they have three months to put themselves in order. If they do not want to do that, that is also fine, and they can cease being a Member of Parliament. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understands the purpose of the deeming mechanism in these provisions.

Dominic Grieve: I think that I do: that is why I was hoping to encourage the Minister to clarify the position in the way that the Secretary of State clarified it when I wrote to him about this matter as soon as I saw the amendment. The key issue is whether somebody could end up being subject to double taxation. I believe that the Minister may be in a position to give the Committee some reassurance on that matter. If it is not satisfactorily covered, it provides the one opportunity that somebody who ended up being double-taxed might have to bring legal proceedings against the Government on the grounds of discrimination. As I entirely support the Government amendments, I wish to avoid that happening; that is why I want to press the Minister on this point.

Michael Wills: Good-I am glad that at last we have managed precisely to elucidate what the hon. and learned Gentleman is about. If he is concerned about double taxation agreements, he can simply nod to tell me that that, and nothing else, is the burden of his concern.

Dominic Grieve: indicated assent.

Michael Wills: Right. In that case, the position is clear; I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is already aware of it. These new clauses do not affect the UK's double taxation agreements. For someone who is resident in the UK but also resident in another country or receives income from another country that is taxed in that country, the double taxation agreements exist to ensure that there is no double taxation. If no double taxation agreement is in place, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will give unilateral relief that allows relief for the foreign tax paid, and the individual will be liable only to tax for the difference, if UK tax rates are higher. That means that there will not be double taxation.
	It is worth pointing out that these arrangements are available to all those resident in the United Kingdom: they are not special arrangements for Members of Parliament or for peers. That is important, because the fundamental point of principle is that Members of Parliament, whether in this House or in the other place, should be subject to the same taxation arrangements as the vast majority of British citizens. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is reassured and that I have clarified his concerns about the matter.
	As I said, new clause 86 provides for a transitional period of three months during which incumbent peers can give notice in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments that they are not willing to be subject to the deeming provision, and from that point their membership of the other place will cease. Members who remain will automatically be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled after that period. Once part 3 of the Bill comes into force, a peer may resign from the other place at any time if they do not wish to continue to be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled for tax purposes. New clause 86 provides that when a peer stands down from the other place during the transitional phase, they will be enfranchised. It also provides that when clause 33 comes into force they may disclaim their peerage. This is consistent with the approach we have taken in part 3 whereby those who leave the House for whatever reason may also, if they wish, disclaim their peerage.
	The new provision will not apply to the Lords Spiritual, as their membership of the House of Lords is inextricably linked to their professional position in the Church. They do not take a seat after accepting a peerage-it comes with their position in the Church of England.

David Howarth: rose-

Michael Wills: It is also worth reminding the House that, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is already aware, the Lords Spiritual are paid by the Church of England and taxed at source anyway.

David Howarth: I do not want to harp on about bishops to any great extent, as I did so last time we discussed the Bill. However, surely it is possible for a bishop to claim to be non-domiciled on the grounds of having foreign income and then take advantage of that position by being taxed on a remittance basis. I cannot understand why this provision should not apply to bishops.

Michael Wills: Clearly, it is theoretically possible that there could be an enormously wealthy bishop who was escaping large amounts of taxation in this way, but I am not aware of any in that position. It is important to look at the facts to see why we have taken this view; obviously, all these matters are proportionate. Bishops in the House of Lords do not accept a peerage-they assume the position as a result of their profession as a bishop in the Church of England. If there were to be such a bishop who was non-domiciled and not ordinarily resident and who had these advantageous tax arrangements, then under these new clauses, they would, if they were not exempt, have to cease their profession, because the only way that they could cease to be a Member of the House of Lords would be to stop being a bishop.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's theoretical concern, but I remind him that the Labour party is committed, in the next term of a Labour Government, to moving to a wholly elected second Chamber; in that context, this issue does not arise. I ask him to reflect on my remarks about what might be considered to be a disproportionate response to a situation in the distant future that is very unlikely to materialise. However, I am happy to consider any further representations that he may wish to make on this particular point.
	The new clauses will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent so that they may apply to the next Parliament. As such, amendment 132 makes the necessary amendments to part 9 of the Bill. Amendment 134 is a technical amendment to the long title of the Bill to reflect the addition of the new clauses.
	These amendments to the Bill clearly demonstrate that we are able to respond to the legitimate concerns of the public and that we are willing and able in this instance to put our own house in order. As such, I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will be able to accept them.

Dominic Grieve: I have put my name to the Minister's two principal amendments-not to the consequential ones, but they are merely consequential. That is a firm expression of my view that they come as near as possible to meeting the necessity that we have identified, and the Government have identified, to do something about this matter. I am comforted by the fact that when the Secretary of State wrote to me in reply to an e-mail that I sent to him about the details of the new clauses, he pointed out that the intention behind them is exactly the same as that of new clause 53, albeit that it is fleshed out in greater detail, as I would expect. I was always conscious that in a matter of this sort a Government amendment would be required to resolve the legal minutiae, particularly regarding an issue that concerns revenue matters.
	We entirely welcome new clauses 85 and 86. They are a sensible way forward to ensuring that the public are reassured that all Members of this House and the House of Lords are treated as if they were resident in the United Kingdom-like the vast majority of people in this country-for tax purposes.
	The Minister also provided reassurance-at my prompting, I am glad to say, though I am sorry if I did not prompt him at quite the right points-to clear up the transitional arrangements, which excited some comment. One or two Members of the other place raised the matter with me to try to understand what it would involve. The Minister has now explained that more fully, and I am grateful to him.
	To play devil's advocate, there is only one matter in the proposals about which I had some hesitation, although, on reflection, I can probably dispense with the hesitation. However, it is worth flagging up. There are currently provisions in the upper House for Members to take leave of absence. That enables them to go abroad to pursue their lives, professions, trades or businesses, but leaves them the option of returning and starting to sit in the House again when their leave of absence ends. I should be grateful if the Minister endorsed, in his winding-up speech, that the new provisions effectively mean that that system of leave of absence would no longer be possible if, during the course of it, the person went abroad and became domiciled there for business purposes, because he would be required to continue to be deemed UK-resident, even though he was not playing an active part in the life of the other place.

David Howarth: I am not too sure whether that point works, given that new clause 85 is a deeming clause. The person concerned would therefore be treated for tax purposes as resident and domiciled, regardless of the facts.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My understanding from raising the matter with the Government is that, although in future Members of the other place could seek leave of absence, as they have done in the past and still do, there would be no possibility, once the Bill was enacted, of their being non-domiciled in this country for tax purposes during that leave of absence. They would not be treated as not being domiciled in this country-they would continue to receive tax demands and be required to pay UK tax as if they were still here. Their only avenue out in those circumstances would be to resign from the House of Lords. That would mean that they could not-as they could hitherto-return to the service of the House on their return from some foreign appointment.
	One could argue that that has a measure of not only novelty but-because it affects someone who is not playing an active role in the other place-unfairness. The other way of looking at it is that if one chooses to remain a Member of the other place, one must simply accept that, under the new rules, one will be deemed to be resident in this country for tax purposes until one decides to resign. As I can envisage some difficulties in adapting the provisions to take account of leave of absence, I assume that the Government have decided to ignore that. However, I ask the Minister for a rationale behind the Government's approach to the matter. He did not provide one in his opening speech this evening, but it would be helpful if could do so because I do not believe that anyone has complained in the past of mischief in the case of a peer who has leave of absence being away from the UK or not domiciled, but perhaps the Government think that somebody has done so.
	We will support new clause 85. We have signed it and, if it is put to the vote, we will back the Government. We wish it a fair passage on to the statute book. I hope that, consequently, we can bring to an end a sorry episode of constant suspicion of individuals in the other place, some of which may prove totally unfounded in some cases-

David Winnick: Or founded.

Dominic Grieve: It may be founded or unfounded. The hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sedentary position, and I simply say to him that some people may be surprised by who decides to go and who decides to stay.
	However, it is essential that the uncertainty be brought to an end. The public are entitled to reassurance that those who legislate pay tax in this country, like any other citizen. On that, we wholly support the Government. Indeed, that is why we tabled new clause 53.

David Howarth: I, too, welcome the Government's movement on the subject and support the proposal. However, I fear that they have chosen the wrong method to bring about a result that hon. Members of all parties want. I ask the Government to think again about that method because it does not reach the heart of the problem.
	As I understand it, the Government propose a deeming clause so that, regardless of whether a Member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons is, in fact,
	"resident, ordinarily resident or domiciled"
	in this country, they will be treated as
	"resident, ordinarily resident or domiciled"
	for tax purposes. The transitional provisions simply deal with the position of someone who might wish to resign as a consequence of being treated in that way.
	I have a problem with the deeming provision. It is about domicile rather than residence. Residence is about the present and the immediate past, but domicile is different. Domicile is about long-term intentions-the place in which people are settled permanently in their own minds. It is ultimately about loyalty to one place or another. It is also true-this is relevant to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)-that one can have more than one residence, but only one domicile.
	The law of domicile goes back to an idea about personal law-law that applies to a person, who carries it around with them and is judged according to it, wherever they are. It goes back to a definition of domicile in Halsbury, which states:
	"Every individual is regarded as belonging, at every stage in his life, to some community consisting of all persons domiciled in a particular country".
	The phrase "belonging...to some community" is why I think that domicile is an important matter in itself for judging whether someone should be regarded as a proper person to sit in a country's legislature.
	There is a contradiction in saying, "My long-term intention is to live in another country and to be part of another community rather than this country, in this community where I want to act as a legislator." There is a problem with that. There are different examples, which might have different consequences, but I think they all lead to the same problem.
	Let us consider a person whose father had a domicile in a different country-a domicile of origin that is not Britain. Later, when the person reaches the age of 16, the law states that, at that point and any point afterwards, they are entitled to choose a different domicile. Let us say that that person then fails or declines to change their domicile from that of their father to domicile in this country. That is not a technicality about tax, but a reality about that person's view of themselves, and of which country and community they wish to belong.
	That example has something in common with the situation of Mr. Zac Goldsmith. His position, as far as I understand it, is that his father's domicile of origin was a different country, and that since the age of 16, he has had the opportunity to change that but has not done so. He now says that he is about to change his domicile, but he did not do so from when he was 16, which I believe was about 1981, to the present day. The question is not about paying tax, but about a person's commitment to this country.
	Other people are in a similar position. It is perfectly reasonable for a migrant to this country to have a domicile of origin in a different country, but once they come here, assuming they are of age, they are entitled to choose a different domicile. If they do not do so, especially over a long period, one must ask whether they have the commitment to this country that is required of someone who wants to sit in our legislature. That appears to be the case with Lord Paul, who came to this country in, I believe, 1966. Throughout that period, he has had the legal right to change domicile to this country but has not done so.
	The position of Lord Ashcroft, of course, is rather more obscure, perhaps deliberately so, but it appears to be a different sort of case-one in which someone starts with a domicile of origin in this country. One could be born in Sussex to a British father, and therefore, I suppose, have a domicile of origin in Britain, but then one might move to a different country-to Belize, for example, or to the Turks and Caicos islands-and develop an intention permanently to live there for the rest of one's life. Making a domicile of choice somewhere else would be an intention not to live in Britain. One could argue that of the Goldsmith-Paul and Ashcroft examples, the latter shows even less commitment to this country, because it is a case not of someone being landed with a domicile by their family or origin and then having to decide what to do about it, perhaps without realising what the law is, but of someone consciously going out to develop a domicile of choice in a different country.
	Being generous, it is possible to argue that someone who has chosen a domicile in a different country might still have the requisite amount of commitment to this country if they refuse to take advantage of their domicile for tax purposes. This is the importance of the remittance basis of tax: a person living in this country might have a long-term intention to live in a different country, but they do not want to take advantage of that for tax purposes. That might show a sufficient commitment to this country. However, someone who has a long-term intention not to be domiciled here and takes advantage of that for their personal advantage is not the kind of person who has sufficient commitment to be a Member of our legislature.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman's argument falls down in relation to the European Union, because 80 per cent. of our laws now come from there rather than this place. The European Commission is made of people who have no commitment to, and do not pay tax in, this country, but who still pass laws that affect this country. Presumably, according to his line of argument and criteria, European commissioners should introduce laws in this country only if they are paying tax here.

David Howarth: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I do not know how we would measure a percentage of laws. Nor do I accept that laws passed in Europe are not passed by this country-that is also wrong, because this country passed an Act of Parliament allowing it to happen. The fundamental question is who should be in the legislature of this country when it passes something like the European Communities Act 1972. Such a person should have a degree of commitment to living in this country.

Dominic Grieve: Dare I say that the hon. Gentleman seems to be following a rather esoteric path? The reasons why we have such odd rules that allow all sorts of strange people to come here and become peers and Members of Parliament are, firstly, our imperial past, particularly in respect of Commonwealth citizens-we have never modernised the rules in that regard but have left them as they are-and secondly, our mediaeval past, which is about personal fealty. People could move around and pledge personal fealty, and fulfil it.
	What fascinates me-dare I say it?-is the rather nationalist view the hon. Gentleman is expressing. I find it strangely out of keeping with the principles that I normally associate with the Liberal Democrats.

David Howarth: I do not think the Liberal Democrats have ever said it was a good idea for someone who had no connection with a local authority area to stand for election to that local authority. Perhaps I am expressing some Whig principles, but we have stood by those principles for a very long time.
	There is a real problem. What we are talking about is not whether people pay tax in a certain way, but the underlying problem of their commitment. That is why I am not entirely happy with how the Government have chosen to deal with the problem-it does not require that commitment from individuals, but simply says that they are to be treated as if they have it whether or not they do. The measure tends to treat the symptoms, not the underlying disease.

Michael Penning: I am slightly curious, because I know the hon. Gentleman is a good European. Surely the concept of the European Union is free movement within the European Union. The hon. Gentleman's argument would prevent that movement ethic, because a person would be precluded from moving around by the fact that he must have a commitment back here. If a person is committed to the European Union, he should be able to go around the European Union.

David Howarth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about people in the legislature-Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. I rather doubt that a person living in Sicily would take into account the chances of becoming a Member of the House of Lords when deciding whether to move to Britain. We are talking about law-making, not general economic activity.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that I want to move him away from Europe-I am sure you will be pleased about that, too, Mr. Illsley. He was talking about commitment, which is important. However, is it not more important to consider the authority of those who set taxes? We rule the country, as it were, and fix the laws, by the authority of the people. They do not want other people to pass laws on what taxes they will pay if those others themselves seek to avoid paying those taxes, like so many Conservatives.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and simply add this: the fact that people were seeking to avoid tax is important, not whether they actually ended up paying tax on one basis or another.
	The Liberal Democrats made a slightly different proposal that did not involve the deeming provision. It would simply have meant that if someone admits to being a non-dom and takes advantage of that for tax purposes, they should resign from the Lords-they would simply not be allowed to be a Member of the Lords. If they are not willing to say whether they are non-doms or not, they should be suspended from the Lords until they do so. If they make a declaration about their status but lie about it, that should be a crime and they should be disqualified from the Lords. That is a straightforward approach. It is not vindictive or retrospective, but it is firm in its central purpose, which is to say to people who do not have that real level of commitment to this country that they should not sit in our legislature.
	One can quibble about the detail in all these proposals. I accept that the Government's proposals are better than the present situation, and better than the Conservatives' proposals, which lack any transparency. However, a different approach would come closer to the reality at the heart of the matter, and I ask the Government to think about whether what we are doing here is legislating about reality or appearance.

Gordon Prentice: I just want to say a few words to start with for my many supporters out there. I fear that I have been stitched up procedurally, and it may not be possible to vote on my new clause. I know that that will disappoint my many supporters, and it grieves me. I support Government new clauses 85 and 86, but so do the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. My new clause is in the same grouping, and the first vote will be on Government new clause 85. I shall not ask my friends to vote against my Government, so that will go through, and that will effectively kill all the other new clauses and amendments in that group. That is the stitch-up.
	My new clause proposes an approach that the others do not, and it would have retrospective effect, but I shall come to that. My Government have come to this issue very late-two or three months before a general election-but we have known that this has been a festering problem for years. Even last year, when Lord Campbell-Savours tabled amendments to the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009-which capped at £7,500 the donations that non-doms could made to political parties-the Government had to be forced into accepting that position. My friend the Secretary of State for Justice told me that I had the numbers-not that the argument was right, but that I had the numbers. What a tragedy it is that my Government act on that basis.

Michael Wills: My hon. Friend has fought a successful campaign and deserves credit for his diligence and persistence, but he should give the whole picture. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said, but we have always talked about the principle behind this issue, and my hon. Friend should at least give us credit for that.

Gordon Prentice: In the real world, when these changes take effect really matters. I had a private Member's Bill more than two years ago-the Disqualification from Parliament (Taxation Status) Bill-which ran into the usual procedural problems. However, the Government had an opportunity to take up that Bill and, with our huge majority and given the demands for action by Labour Back Benchers, to make it law. The cap on donations was too late and although the new clauses are welcome, they do not go far enough and nor are they retrospective.
	A few years ago, we woke up to the problem that there were legislators in this Parliament who were not paying UK taxes. That was an affront to those inside and outside this place. Indeed, I know for a fact that one legislator is a tax exile. Moreover, he is a tax exile on leave of absence. It is Lord Laidlaw, a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party, who was ennobled in 2004 after promising the House of Lords Appointments Commission that he would become a UK resident for tax purposes. He reneged on that promise.
	HOLAC's annual report for 2006-07 said:
	"During spring 2004, the Commission vetted a list of party-political nominees. One of the individuals on the list, Irvine Laidlaw (now Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay) was not resident in the UK for tax purposes. Following an exchange of correspondence and a face-to-face meeting, the Commission accepted an assurance from Lord Laidlaw that he would become a resident in the UK for tax purposes from April 2004. On the basis of this assurance, the Commission found no objection to his appointment. The Commission would have taken a different view on Lord Laidlaw's nomination if it had known that he would not be resident in the UK for tax purposes from April 2004. In June 2004 he was appointed to the House of Lords."
	Lord Laidlaw still does not pay UK taxes. He is a self-confessed tax exile living in Monaco. He has given £3 million to the Conservative party, and I have said publicly many times that it should return that tainted money. To take money from someone who sits in the UK Parliament but does not pay UK taxes is a scandal.

Bob Spink: Does that breach of trust by Lord Laidlaw give the hon. Gentleman any confidence in the promise made by Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith along the same lines?

Gordon Prentice: I do not want to get sucked into that issue-[Hon. Members: "Go on!"] No, I have read all the stuff in the newspapers about Zac Goldsmith not receiving a benefit from his non-dom status and how it was all a big mistake that would be put right, but I do not want to go there. I just want to draw attention to something that is on the record, because it is a scandal that a tax exile has been bankrolling the Conservatives' campaign and they will not give the money back.
	Lord Stevenson, the then chair of HOLAC, wrote to Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, about the issue:
	"The Commission has always required that nominees to the House of Lords must be resident in the UK for tax purposes. Following a review of our processes in 2005"-
	following the Laidlaw scandal-
	"we will not vet nominees who are not resident in the UK for tax purposes; nominees need to be UK resident and paying taxes before the Commission will consider their nomination."
	That is the effect of the scandal of the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party who was given a peerage in 2004. HOLAC will no longer even accept nominations if the person is not a UK resident for tax purposes.
	I turn now to Lord Ashcroft, whose case has some similarities to that of Lord Laidlaw. Lord Ashcroft gave an undertaking to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, the predecessor body of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, that he would become a UK resident for tax purposes in 2000. However, unlike with Lord Laidlaw, we have no record of his giving any assurance that he has done that. Now we are in an Alice in Wonderland situation, where for 10 years we have found it impossible to establish whether Lord Ashcroft has properly been elevated to the peerage, even though what I have described was, in a sense, a condition of his being elevated to the peerage.
	Like many other colleagues, I have read all 36 pages of the report from the Information Commissioner, who agrees with me that more information should be put into the public domain about the nature of the undertaking that was given by Michael Ashcroft-now Lord Ashcroft-and the form that that undertaking took. Let me remind the Committee-this is relevant and I want to get it on the record-that Michael Ashcroft was appointed to the House of Lords in 2000. A No. 10 statement was issued in March 2000 saying:
	"In order to meet the requirements for a Working Peer, Mr. Michael Ashcroft has given his clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom again before the end of the calendar year"-
	that is, before the end of 2000. The statement continued:
	"He would be introduced into the House of lords only after taking up that residence."
	Then the statement said:
	"These undertakings have been endorsed by the Leader of the Conservative Party"-
	then the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)-
	"and conveyed to the Prime Minister and to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee."
	That is very clear indeed; and yet for 10 years Lord Ashcroft has maintained that the matter is private and that no one else has the right to inquire into it, even though that undertaking was a condition of his elevation to the peerage.
	The Information Commissioner will be asking for-or rather, not asking for, but ordering-the release of that information within the next 35 days. Let me make a public request to Lord Ashcroft now: he should not wait 35 days; he should just speak out now and tell us what we all want to know. He just needs to say, "Yes, I am a UK resident for tax purposes, and I have been for each of the past 10 years," and then my new clause and this whole debate will be otiose and redundant. We will see what happens with Michael Ashcroft. I just want him to speak out and tell the truth, and I am sure that he will.
	I know that colleagues are uncomfortable about retrospection, and I am too. However, we have on the amendment paper today an amendment or new clause-I cannot remember which-that allows for retrospection in MPs' salaries. Legg, like it or not, is retrospective: he has gone back five years, which is retrospection with a capital R and in bold. The other thing about my new clause and retrospection is that it does not apply to the wider population, but to a small subset of the population: us and our colleagues in the House of Lords. I accept that it is in the public interest generally to avoid retrospective legislation, but there are cases where it is justified.
	I thought at this stage that I would be looking at the back of the head of my friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but he is not here. However, I will make this point anyway. The Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 was introduced by him and it has retrospective provisions. The Election Publications Act 2001 was also introduced, I think, by my friend the Member for Blackburn, who was Home Secretary in 2001, so there are many-well, not many; I am getting carried away-there are a number of Acts containing retrospective provisions of which my friend the Member for Blackburn was the author. There is also the Banking Act 2009, which gives the Treasury powers to make orders with retrospective effect. I have tried to do a little homework for this debate, because to me it is about an important issue. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has said:
	"there is no absolute prohibition on retrospective legislation in British Constitutional law or practice. There does, however, need to be a compelling reason in the public interest for a departure from the general principle that retrospective legislation is undesirable."
	If ever there was an important issue that justified retrospective action, surely it is this one, where people have been in Parliament under what I would say were false pretences.
	That is as much as I can do here; I now leave it to people outside. What a sad reflection it is on our procedures that I have to rely on the Information Commissioner, who is acting on the view that I put to him, which is that there is a public interest imperative in knowing how people who, unlike us, are not elected get into the legislature down there, in the other place. The Information Commission is doing a very good job.

Richard Taylor: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). If he pushes his new clause 52 to a vote, I would certainly support it. Hon. Members must understand that I come at this issue from the point of view of independent election candidates, who fight on a very unlevel playing field. To my mind, new clause 52 would level the playing field for us independents and, perhaps, the smaller parties as well.
	Let us look at the recent changes to the election expenses regulations. We now have a long campaign as well as a short campaign. In the long campaign we are allowed to spend £25,000, plus an amount for each constituent. What independent hopeful or smaller party has 25 grand to spend, unless they happen to be multi-millionaires? It is enough of a struggle to raise the £7,000 and a bit for the short campaign, so anything that placed more control on outside donors, with a retrospective focus on their tax status, would certainly make it rather more difficult for these super-rich people to donate to the main parties. I realise that that would not be popular with Members who belong to parties. However, in view of the desire to improve the reputation of the House and of our electoral system, I appeal to hon. Members to look at the use of rich supporters in the football league. It is well known that money buys the best footballers.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thought that the 1832 Reform Act had got rid of the idea that votes could be bought. Perhaps they can no longer be bought directly, but elections can certainly be bought. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that certain seats will be won because of the money spent there?

Richard Taylor: I will refer to the hon. Member as my hon. Friend, because he has just made the point that I was about to make. It appears that people can buy election results, but they cannot necessarily buy the best MPs. I am absolutely in favour of the hon. Member for Pendle's new clause, and I wish that he would press it to a vote.

Michael Wills: That was an interesting debate. Although it is sometimes hard to discern it, I believe that there is a broad measure of consensus on these matters. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) prefers his own new clause, but he did not actually raise too many concerns about the Government's proposals, apart from the issue of retrospectivity, which I will come to.
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a point about leave of absence. He will be aware of the correspondence on that. I remind him that the policy intention behind the new clauses is to ensure that those who sit in the United Kingdom Parliament pay tax on the same basis as the majority of the population. I hope that he will accept that his concerns would come into play only when someone was working abroad on public service. They would not refer to someone taking a leave of absence to avoid, or even evade, paying tax in this country. We are talking about people who go away to work on public service and, for the most part, for only a short period of time.
	I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what Lord Jay said to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which I think everyone in this place and most people in the other place would accept. He rightly said that a position in the other place ought to be a job, not an honour. If someone stops doing that job, that is a matter for them. The option is clear: they can resign their position in the other place and not be covered by these provisions, or, if they wish to maintain a presence in the House of Lords, they should be covered by them. Apart from that, I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, and to him and his colleagues for putting their names to the new clause. This is the right way forward.

Bob Spink: I thank those on the Front Benches for their support, but has the Minister noticed that, although there is not a single Tory Member on the Back Benches at the moment, there is almost a full house of four independent Members here to support the premise that those who set taxes in this country should pay taxes in this country?

Michael Wills: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield appears to be on his own in this matter.

Dominic Grieve: There is no need for the repetition of something that one member of my party need say only once. There is unanimity on this point.

Michael Wills: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) expounded at some length his view on the problems relating to deeming. He gave his argument full justification, and I will not repeat most of it. I am interested in his definition of "belonging", however. He seems to take exception to the symbolic perpetuation of the position of non-domiciles, saying that it somehow undermines their commitment to this country. He acknowledged that there could be perfectly good reasons for retaining that position that would not have any practical impact on the commitment of a Member of the other place to this country. I am interested to find out why a symbolic affirmation of commitment, in relation to the status of domicile, is more important than the huge practical manifestation of commitment through paying tax in this country. That is the point.

David Howarth: rose-

Michael Wills: I will give way, although I suspect that we shall hear a repetition of the hon. Gentleman's previous arguments. I just want to refer him to the main point, in the hope that he will support our proposals. The main point is that it is simply unacceptable that any Member of this Parliament should not be put in the position of the vast majority of the residents of this country and pay the specified taxes that we have identified.

David Howarth: That point is fine, but my point was that the way the Minister is doing things, the individuals concerned are being forced to pay tax, even though they do not want to be domiciled in this country.

Michael Wills: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman's problem is with being forced to pay tax. I think we could find very few people who actually want to pay tax. Most people accept it as a price of citizenship, and most of us do so willingly and happily. However, the idea is that we have laws in this country- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can listen to the argument or not, as he wishes. I listened to him at great length, and he might at least do me the courtesy of trying to appreciate my argument.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Wills: I will in a moment, but first I wish the hon. Member for Cambridge to understand that the important point, which I hope he now accepts, is that the people who sit in this Parliament should pay tax in the way that the vast majority of UK residents do so. I therefore hope that he will support the provisions.

David Drew: Is not the answer to do what they do in the States? Every member of the legislature has to produce a full statement of their income and expenditure and their tax records. Those are all on the record, including President Obama's from when he was a Senator. Why are we so timid and so lacking in transparency in this country?

Michael Wills: Tempted as I am to enter into a new discussion with my hon. Friend, which I am sure would be illuminating and revealing, if he will forgive me I will stick to the new clauses and amendments in question. That is a matter for another time, I am sure.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend said a while ago that no one wants to pay more tax. I have argued with the Liberal Democrats on the doorstep, saying that I do want to pay more tax, but for social equality and better public services, not so that millionaires can get away with not paying tax.

Michael Wills: That makes the point that nobody wants to pay tax so that billionaires can avoid paying it. I hope that almost everybody would agree with that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle made a number of points, and I am glad for his contribution to the debate. He made an important point about retrospectivity, on which he has done a lot of work. As he says, there is no absolute prohibition on it, and it does happen from time to time. He mentioned one such situation. Nevertheless, it is a bad principle and axiomatically an affront to natural justice. There must be an overwhelmingly compelling case for it, and I am not sure that he made it. Our new provisions will deliver everything for which he has campaigned for a long time. He has been a diligent campaigner on the matter, and the Government have always accepted the principle behind the campaign. We have had problems finding a way to make the system effective so that it works in the way that most people want it to work. I am not sure that he has made a compelling case for breaching the fundamental principle against retrospectivity, because everything that he wants to achieve will be achieved in the Bill. I shall sit down shortly, so I suspect that there will be time for my hon. Friend to make the case for his amendment, and then we will have a further discussion on it. I hope that he will reflect further on my fundamental point about retrospectivity.

David Heath: It is retrospectivity that I wish to ask the Minister a question about. I can see that there should be a strong presumption against it when it means that a new requirement is applied retrospectively to a person who could not or should not have been able to foresee it. In this case, however, are we not talking about solemn undertakings given to a body of Parliament in order for people to take their seat? Should they not have anticipated that, one day, somebody would ask them whether they had complied with the undertakings that they had given?

Michael Wills: I am not going to comment on one or two individual cases, because I am not familiar with all the details of them. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are making law here, and hard cases make bad law. I hope that he will forgive the aphorism. We have to make law to cover the generality of the people who sit here. In the particular cases that he is talking about, all kinds of mechanisms have been set up.
	That reminds me of a point that I wanted to pick up with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle. He will correct me if I am quoting him wrongly, but I believe he said that it was a sad reflection that we had to rely on the Information Commissioner in such matters. It is not a sad reflection, as that is precisely why the Government set up the Information Commissioner's office-to ensure that people have access to the information to which they are entitled. That is a fundamental principle of our programme of constitutional reforms. We are proud of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and we are going to enhance it, not row it back. It is not a sad reflection at all; it is a celebration of this Government's achievement with the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that when he comes to speak again shortly. He should be pleased with what the Information Commissioner's office has done; I would hope that he welcomes it.
	Finally, I remind the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that there are other mechanisms to deal with alleged wrongdoing in particular cases. No doubt they will be pursued and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, along with many others, will be pursuing the issue in the weeks and months to come.
	I welcome what I took to be the welcome of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) for the Bill's provisions and indeed for the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 . I am grateful for his support, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 New clause 85 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 86
	 — 
	Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision

'(1) This section applies if, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a member of the House of Lords ("M") gives written notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments that M does not want section [Tax status of MPs and members of the House of Lords] to apply to M.
	(2) M shall not be a member of the House of Lords at any time after the notice is given and accordingly-
	(a) M shall not be entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House, and
	(b) any writ of summons previously issued to M has no further effect.
	(3) Section 33 (disclaimer) applies to M as if M were a person to whom section 30 has applied.
	(4) If M is a person excepted from section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (c. 34) by virtue of section 2 of that Act-
	(a) M shall no longer be excepted from section 1 of the 1999 Act, and
	(b) if M counted towards the limit under section 2(2) of the 1999 Act, that limit is reduced by one.
	(5) If M is not such a person, M ceases to be disqualified by virtue of M's peerage (or dignity) for-
	(a) voting at elections to the House of Commons, or
	(b) being, or being elected as, a member of that House.
	(6) In relation to M, any reference in section 1(3) or (4)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (c. 50) to a register of parliamentary electors is to be read as including-
	(a) any register of local government electors in Great Britain, and
	(b) any register of local electors in Northern Ireland,
	which was required to be published on any date before the notice is given.
	(7) If, after the notice is given, a peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 (c. 21) is conferred on M, subsection (2) above does not stop M being entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of that peerage.
	(8) If, after the notice is given, M becomes the person who is to hold the office of Earl Marshal or perform the office of Lord Great Chamberlain, subsection (2) above does not stop M being entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of the peerage that led to M becoming the person who is to hold or perform the office in question.
	(9) A person to whom regulation 4 of the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1647) applies is to be treated as a member of the House of Lords for the purposes of this section.'.- (Mr. Wills.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

David Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment.
	 Progress reported ; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask how  Hansard will record the last five minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I imagine that  Hansard will treat the last five minutes as an informal suspension.

David Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate that we have just had finished very early. Some of us felt strongly that new clause 52 should have been put to a vote, but we were told very clearly that when the Government new clauses were put to the Committee and accepted, that would be prevented. That would have made some sense if we had had no time in which to vote, but there was plenty of time. May we have a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on why the procedure was dealt with in that way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to say that those events occurred in Committee, and I am not able to comment on what happened during the Committee stage.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the problems that we experienced when the Committee stage finished early was that, because of the timetable motion, we could not continue to deal with amendments and new clauses which were quite properly tabled for discussion in Committee. Is there any possibility that the House could revisit the timetable motion, so that we can make proper progress on a constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House while we are here waiting to debate it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, which is firmly on the record, but I am sure he will appreciate that there is nothing that I can do to deal with it at this point.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that you cannot comment now on procedures carried out when the House was in Committee, but may I ask you to request that the Speaker examine the  Hansard record tomorrow and make a statement tomorrow about the procedure that has been applied? As a result of that procedure, a significant new clause tabled by a Back Bencher could not be put to a vote, although I believe it was the will of the House that that should happen. It would be helpful to have a ruling from the Speaker on the matter, or at least a statement that the procedure might be reformed in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker always takes a very close interest in all the business of the House, but I will personally make sure that all these matters are drawn to his attention tomorrow morning.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of the procedural mix-up tonight, we have lost about six minutes during which time we could, and should, have been debating item 10 on the Order Paper on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, when arguments could have been made that we should not pass such motions, or move forward with that Act at all, until we have made progress on the common agricultural policy and root-and-branch reform of our relationship with the European Union. Will Mr. Speaker be minded to extend tonight's business by six minutes after 10 o'clock, so we that can make up that valuable time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot deal with that matter now, and in any case we have not yet reached the business to which he refers.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that if the hon. Gentleman were to look at the Order Paper, he would see that we have not yet reached that point on our agenda-and when we do so, who knows what might happen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entirely agree. That is precisely the point I have just made to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electronic Communications

That the draft Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 8 December, be approved. - (David Wright.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Skills Training Conditionality Pilot) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 15 December, be approved. - (David Wright.)
	 Question agreed to.

EAST OF ENGLAND REGIONAL GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 117A(3)),
	That the East of England Regional Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 23 February between 9.00 am and 1.00 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on priorities for a future regional strategy. - ( David Wright.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 83.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.  [Interruption.] Motion not moved.

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have here a ludicrous situation in which the Government are trying to sneak things through at the end of the day's business. They are quite happy to move motions when there is no time for debate, but when there is roughly an hour to debate an issue, they do not want to move the motion. Can anything be done to make sure that motions on the Order Paper are moved when there is time to debate them in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have done everything within the normal rules of the House; the Government's actions are a matter for the Government.

PETITION
	 — 
	Swimming Pool (Canvey Island)

Bob Spink: The people of Canvey love our island and treasure its heritage. They are indebted to campaigners Lea and Liz Swann and to Councillor Dave Blackwell for trying to reverse a decision to destroy an important part of Canvey Island's seafront- the tidal pool. I am indebted to the 127 people who attended the public meeting last week and voted unanimously to retain the pool to keep our children on Canvey Island safer. They are calling on the borough councillors to rescind their decision.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Liz and Lea Swann, residents of Canvey Island and others,
	Declares that they support and want to protect and enhance the Canvey Sea Front area and therefore object to the proposed removal of the swimming pool at the far end of Concord Beach; notes that the swimming pool is enjoyed by many local residents, particularly children, forms an important and historic part of the iconic Canvey Seafront, is important to local businesses that rely on the visitors for income during the summer months, and would cost very little to maintain; further declares that retaining the pool is by far the safer option and that this proposal has been made without any consultation of residents or businesses at all, that the council has not published any costs or proposals for consideration, has not consulted the Environment Agency on the environmental impact to the beach and surrounding properties, did not include Canvey Island's Town Councillors in discussions; that for these and many other valid reasons this proposal should be withdrawn by the mainland Conservative Borough Councillors, and that given the importance to the wider community of protecting this local beach attraction, the Council must properly and widely consult the public before making any decision.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons press the Government to urge Castle Point Borough Council, and the Conservative Council Group, to reject this proposal and instead spend public funds on the swimming pool's upkeep.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P000725]

CHILDREN'S HOMES (PLANNING APPLICATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed , That this House do now adjourn.- (David Wright.)

Ann Coffey: Children's homes should provide a safe, positive and caring environment for young people who are unable to live at home. It is important that they provide the highest standards of care. Over the years, care and inspection of children's homes has been subject to changes. Indeed, before the Care Standards Act 2000, homes with fewer than four children did not have to be registered at all. Quite rightly, inspection is becoming more rigorous, and I welcome the new draft minimum care standards, issued by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, on which Ofsted will base future inspections. That is happening in response to the changing nature of children's homes over the years.
	When I first worked as a social worker in Stockport in the 1980s, small family-type care homes provided a family environment for quite young children. The carers were often a couple resident in the home. Now, of course, younger children are placed in foster families and the young people placed in children's homes are older. They present very difficult and challenging behaviour and often come into care with multiple problems and complex needs.
	In Stockport, a high number of children and young people are placed in our children's homes from other local authority areas. Some 53 per cent. of all looked-after children are from outside the borough, compared with the national average of 35 per cent. Our percentage is one of the highest in the country. Many of the children who live in the homes about which residents have complained to me are from outside Stockport and are young offenders. Owners sometimes charge up to £4,500 a week per child and some advertise aggressively in other boroughs for "priority and prolific offenders".
	In Stockport, we have more than 30 private registered children's homes-the third highest number in the country-and we can bear testament to the changing nature of those homes, given the problems that we have encountered with antisocial behaviour. It is important to improve outcomes for vulnerable, often difficult young people in care, but it is also important to ensure that proper consideration is given to the location of the home.
	Standard 23 in the draft minimum standards, entitled "The design and location of the home", says:
	"Location is carefully considered at the planning stage for a new home...The home is situated in a location which takes into account the safety and protection of children living there and the community."
	That presumes the existence of some planning process, as well as a registration process.
	Tonight I want to focus on the planning legislation that applies to children's homes. I decided to take up the issue again after a recent influx of letters and e-mails from distressed Stockport constituents who have suffered verbal abuse and other forms of antisocial behaviour from the residents of nearby children's homes. My constituents made the point that they were never consulted about the change of use.
	One of my constituents lives with his mother next door to a children's home. He told me about their "monumentally distressing situation". He and his mother have been subjected to much abuse and damage to their home. He described how the home for young people came into existence without local people knowing anything about it or being given any say in the change of use from a private dwelling house. It turns out that the house next door was classified under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to be in use class C3-a dwelling house, which covers use by a single person or by people living together as a family that has not more than six residents living together as a single household and can include a home where care is provided to residents.
	My constituent wrote to Stockport council and was told that no planning breaches had occurred, as a domestic property could be converted, under use C3, into a facility for care for up to six residents living as a single household, without anyone seeking planning permission or consulting local residents. However, a planning application would have been required if residential accommodation and care to people in need of care were being provided, other than use within class C3, as that would fall within class C2. Apart from being a somewhat circular definition, that is very confusing. When is a children's home a residential provision where care is being provided-that is, a C2 use-and when is it a single household where care is provided and therefore a C3 use? It seems to depend on the number of persons, according to the local planning authority.
	The then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a circular in March 2005, adding some guidance on use classes C2 and C3. I quote:
	"The amended Order does not make any changes to class C3: Dwelling houses. This class groups together use as a dwelling house, whether or not the sole or main residence, by single person, any number of persons living together as a family, or by no more than 6 persons living together as a single household. The key element in the use of a dwelling house for non-family purposes is the concept of a single household. The single household concept will provide more certainty over the planning position of small group homes which play a major role in the Government's community care policy which is aimed at enabling disabled and mentally disordered people to live as normal lives as possible in touch with the community.
	In the case of small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions"-
	that is, C2-
	"regardless of the size of the home. Local planning authorities should include any resident care staff in their calculation of the number of people accommodated."
	Clearly, the guidance all hangs on the definition of a single household, not care staffing, as care can be provided both in a dwelling house and in a residential home. What is this entity, a single household? In its briefing note to me, the House of Commons Library said that the definition of
	"living together as a single household"
	is one for case law and not always straightforward. The researcher quoted the Sweet and Maxwell "Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice," which states:
	"The control limit of six persons defines the scope of the right, but does not imply that any excess in numbers must constitute a breach of planning control. Where, for example, premises have been put to this use and six people have lived together as a single household, there will subsequently be a material change in use only where the total number of residents increases to the point where it can be said that the use has intensified so as to become of a different character, or the residents no longer live as a single household, (which may then fall to be regarded as a hostel use, or house let in lodgings)."
	So there we have it-as clear as mud! This does not shed any light on what defines a single household. However, it is this definition and not numbers or care which is key to determining C2 or C3 use.
	The lack of clarity has been a particular issue with houses in multiple occupation where high concentrations have increased antisocial behaviour and had adverse environmental impact on the wider community. It has resulted in an increase in houses in multiple occupation without any planning process because they have been deemed to fall into C3 use, a dwelling house with people living together as a single household. In response to the problems, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation on HMOs and possible planning responses. The responses were published last week, on 27 January, and the most popular planning request was that the use classes order be amended to provide a specific definition of an HMO which removed the ambiguity of the term
	"living together as a single household".
	Following the recent complaints about a children's home in my constituency, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), and received a reply on 8 October last year which made it plain that the position was not as clear-cut as Stockport council had initially indicated, and that a range of factors on a case-by-case basis should be taken into account in determining whether a change of use from dwelling house use to residential institution had taken place.
	I am pleased to say that Stockport has now issued new planning guidance, which states:
	"All proposals for new buildings for children's homes will require planning permission. Frequently, however, the proposal is to use an existing residential dwelling house for the purpose. In such instances it will be necessary to determine whether a change of use of the building, requiring planning permission, is involved. This requires a judgement, having regard to the provisions of the latest government advice and guidance and any relevant case law. The Use Classes Circular updated in March 2005, clarifies that proposals for small care homes should be assessed/determined as a class C2, 'Residential Institutions', use class, distinct from the Class C3 'Dwelling Houses' class. Accordingly, in most cases, planning permission will be required for the change of use".
	This will be welcomed by all my constituents. I congratulate Stockport council on issuing this new planning advice.
	However, the problem is not just a Stockport problem. It is a national issue. Last week I tabled a parliamentary question asking how many planning applications for children's homes under C2 had been submitted, granted and refused in each local authority in England and Wales in the past five years, but I was told that this information was not held centrally. This makes it very difficult to establish the extent of the problem.
	It is right that, in the interests of the welfare of the young people placed as well as the wider community, the suitability of the location is considered. That can be done only through a planning application and the process of consideration of that application. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families said last week that the Government response on the draft national minimum standard is due in June. If standard 23 is accepted, the presumption that all applications for children's homes will have been through a thorough planning application will have implications for the current interpretation that children's homes are C3 use and no planning approval is required to open one.
	I agree that the use classes order must strike a balance between the categories that are too broad, which leave local planning authorities with too little control of changes, and the categories that are too narrow, which increase the number of planning applications. I understand that tension, but, if planning authorities try to deal with the difficulties of community opposition to a children's home by simply not introducing a planning process, local people's hostility to children's homes will continue.
	Although avoiding a planning process may be less difficult in the short term, it will not be easier in the long term if children's homes turn out to be in unsuitable locations, because the residents will blame the local council for failing to consider their interests. The best way of getting community support for children's homes is to ensure that there is a proper planning process, and that local residents' comments are taken into account and reflected in planning conditions. The wider community would then feel that it had some influence and control over the process, because it clearly does not have any at the moment. A proper planning process would also mean that any failure to comply with planning conditions could be reported to Ofsted, which would take that into account in its inspection of the home. That would help raise standards.
	There should be a proper planning process for children's homes. A Greater Manchester police analysis showed that 81 per cent. of children missing from home in Stockport are missing from children's homes, compared with a conurbation average of 65 per cent. of children running away having gone missing from children's homes.

Helen Southworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and recognise her contribution to the Government's support for children who either go missing or run away from care or from home. Would planning approval for a change of use provide police forces with the information that they need on the number and location of children's homes in their area? A senior police officer told me last week that he had not been able to obtain from the registration authority the information on the location and number of children's homes in his police force area, and that he had had to resort to checking the Yellow Pages and other advertising media in order to identify their location. Would my hon. Friend's proposals have any wider benefits than those that she has already identified by virtue of their helping those authorities that needed to work together?

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right: it is very important that the inspection of children's homes takes into account the widest possible range of comments from the local agencies that are involved with the children from the home in question. A proper planning process would enable the police and other local agencies to comment on what was happening in that neighbourhood and provide better details to inform the planning decision on whether the location was appropriate for a home. Furthermore, the owners of a home would therefore try their very best to ensure that a proper management system was in place, because without one they would break their planning conditions, and that in turn would affect their registration. That process would be important in raising standards.
	Our local authority has a larger number of children missing from home, compared with the conurbation average of 65 per cent. of children running away having gone missing from children's homes. That reflects the complex difficulties of those young people, the high level of private provision in Stockport and the difficulty that those private homes have in managing such children. It also gives some indication of the pressure on local agencies. I welcome the measures in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 to restrict out-of-borough placements. That should help, but it will not resolve planning process issues.
	Young people in the care system face huge challenges and often come from very dysfunctional families. Children's homes must have proper management systems and provide the high-quality care that is needed to improve the life chances of those young people. The registration process is integral to the establishment of those high standards, and so is the planning process. The Government have consulted on planning responses to HMOs and recognised the problems caused by high concentrations of those homes. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake a similar consultation on the possible planning responses to children's homes, and to remove the current ambiguities of the single household-a singularly unhelpful definition that has had its time. That would also ensure that people, wherever they live, have the protection of planning laws that respond to the challenges of providing high-quality children's homes in appropriate locations. Times have changed since 1987, and the planning laws need to be adapted. I urge my hon. Friend to bring about the necessary changes.

Ian Austin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this important debate on planning and children's homes. She has spoken eloquently of the issues that arise in providing accommodation for looked-after children. It is clear that this matter is of particular concern in Stockport because of the relatively high concentration of such children in that area.
	I am very sympathetic to the problems that my hon. Friend has described. While we must address the needs of vulnerable children, we must also assess the needs of the community in which they live. The aim of the Government's policy on looked-after children is to ensure that all children's homes are properly run and situated in locations that take into account the safety and protection not only of the children living there but of the local community. As she said, all children's homes are subject to national minimum standards that are underpinned by regulations governing the running of the home. I understand that she has been active in commenting on the draft national minimum standards that were the subject of recent consultation, and she is to be commended for that.
	The standards call for those running children's homes to prepare and implement a policy that sets out measures of control, restraint and discipline and to show how the home will promote appropriate behaviour. They also require a home and its registered manager to maintain appropriate links with the local community to ensure good relations with neighbours. The regulatory system thereby aims to tackle problems of the sort that my hon. Friend has described by ensuring that children's homes are run in a way that promotes good behaviour and addresses antisocial behaviour when it occurs and maintains links with the host community to foster good relations.
	Children's homes must be registered with Ofsted, which is responsible for registering and inspecting care homes. In considering an application for registration, Ofsted will look carefully at the fitness of the applicant and the skills and experience of the proposed manager. Where homes do not meet the required standards, Ofsted has a range of enforcement powers at its disposal. Action needs to be taken against poor homes, in the interests not only of local communities that may be affected but of the children living there. Ofsted has a key role to play in driving up standards through the inspection of children's homes.
	Through the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, Ofsted has been given further powers to take action against homes that do not meet standards or regulations. These include new powers such as restricting new admissions to a home. Further provisions will ensure that all local authorities are notified of enforcement action being taken by a home in cases where the chief inspector has brought proceedings or where a notice to cancel registration has been issued. These measures should lead to greater transparency and will improve the information available to local authorities in making decisions about commissioning placements. I would expect any local authority to investigate instances where a children's home has been badly run or is the subject of complaints from the local community.
	My hon. Friend has raised the planning aspects of providing accommodation for looked-after children, particularly in relation to concerns about the operation of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The planning system is primarily concerned with the use of land and the effect on amenity of any alteration or changes to the use of land. It may be helpful if I explain briefly how the order works. It operates by grouping together into classes land uses that have similar amenity impacts. The order allows changes between certain land uses where the amenity impacts of such would be minimal, without the need for planning permission. In most cases, the permissible change of use is within the same class, but there are cases where movement between classes is permitted. For example, premises currently used as a restaurant-class A3-could be converted to a shop, which would be class A1, without the need to seek planning permission, because the impact of a shop on the surrounding area would be likely to be the same or less than that of a restaurant.
	The order is intended to be a deregulatory mechanism that allows changes of use with minimal impact in terms of land use and amenity. This removes the need for the time and expense of making a planning application and allows local authorities to concentrate their planning resources where they are most needed. However, it is for local planning authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis which class a particular use falls into. When a change of use occurs, the local planning authority must consider whether a material change has occurred that would require planning permission. The planning guidance from Stockport council, which my hon. Friend quoted, recognises that. It is an important principle that material change of use is the test for whether planning permission is required.
	Under the use classes order, I would expect most children's homes to fall into the same use class as other residential institutions, such as nursing homes or training centres-class C2. It applies when there are more than six occupants, or when the occupants are not considered to be living together as a single household.
	However, as my hon. Friend said, it is also possible that some smaller children's homes could fall into the same class as dwelling houses-class C3. That use class provides for dwelling houses used by a single person or a family, but also for small groups of people living together as a single household, including cases where there is an element of care. As she has been advised, there is discretion in the way in which local planning authorities apply that. It is important to retain some discretion to avoid unintended consequences, given the variety of living arrangements that broadly have the same planning impact.
	Depending on the particular circumstances, there may be occasions when a house previously occupied by a family could be changed to a children's home, which would take the premises into class C2 and so require planning permission. There could also be instances of such a change resulting in a children's care home that would still be classified as C3 in planning terms. For example, it would be difficult to argue that significantly different planning impacts arise from a family of six living in a house on the one hand, and four or five children with a carer living there on the other.
	My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the need to consider carefully the location of a home for looked-after children, in relation to the needs of children and young people and to those of the host community. I absolutely agree that such considerations should be carefully applied, and they can take place in other ways, in addition to the planning system.
	For example, the draft standards that my colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families are considering include draft standard 23, which says among other things that
	"location is carefully considered at the planning stage for a new home",
	and that
	"the home is situated in a location which takes into account the safety and protection of children living there and the community."
	The importance of that is already stated in the "Children Act 1989 Volume 4: Statutory Guidance on Residential Care". Those provisions are not about blanket planning requirements, but are intended to make providers of children's homes consider the location when setting up a children's home.
	For example, particular thought should be given to the suitability of the location to providing an environment helpful to each child's development, by giving access to schools, shops and amenities. The standard also lays down that thought should be given at the planning stage to any aspects of design and location which might assist in maintaining a responsible, positive relationship with the neighbourhood.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the nature of children's homes has changed over the years and I am sure that it will continue to change. It is therefore right that local authorities have the discretion to determine whether a material change of use has occurred on a case-by-case basis so that we can achieve a balance between giving local authorities strong powers to shape their local areas and not being unduly burdensome on users of the planning system.

Helen Southworth: Will my hon. Friend give particular consideration to the point that I made earlier? It is so important that local authorities and police forces work together to protect vulnerable children. An aspect of that, considering the police of the 24/7 authority, to which missing children are reported, is that they know where children's homes are located in their area and can build up a relationship with them. Will the Minister consider how he can use the levers in his Department to help with that?

Ian Austin: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which she mentioned earlier. I hope that she accepts that I am not an expert in the way in which the police and local authorities react to those matters. I am surprised, because I would have thought that, if the standards require proper management, it is reasonable to expect what my hon. Friend suggests to happen automatically. I will ask ministerial colleagues who are responsible for those matters to contact my hon. Friend and perhaps meet her to discuss them.

Helen Southworth: I should also like to mention comments that have been made in the past few weeks on national indicator 71, in which my hon. Friend's Department has a key interest, on support for runaway and missing children. It has been in place since April last year, and the evidence I am getting from local authorities, police forces and charities working with vulnerable children is that it is driving change very effectively. Will he consider how he can support that?

Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on such issues and probably knows more than any other hon. Member about how those things work. I would be happy to look at the details and perhaps to arrange for her to meet officials in my Department so that she can provide evidence as to how those measures are working on the ground.

Ann Coffey: Will the Minister and some of his officials meet me to explore further how the planning responses to the HMO document might impinge on the planning applications for children's homes, particularly as they are clear that the single household definition is unhelpful? As he knows, the definition also applies to whether a children's home application is determined as C2 or C3 use. It would be helpful if I had the opportunity to discuss the matter further with him.

Ian Austin: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter and also to ensure that she can have proper discussions with officials.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.